J-S64043-16

*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

LAMONT BOLDEN

Appellant No. 157 EDA 2011

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 20, 2010

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0012129-2010

BEFORE: STABILE, J., SOLANO, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED SEPTEMBER 09, 2016

Appellant Lamont Bolden appeals from the judgment of sentence 

entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County after the trial 

court convicted Appellant of possession of a small amount of marijuana.1 

For the following reasons, we affirm.

On March 6, 2009, Appellant was arrested and charged with 

possession of a controlled substance2and possession of a small amount of 

marijuana. His case was listed for trial in Philadelphia’s Municipal Court. 

Appellant filed a suppression motion in the Municipal Court on September 

27, 2010. After a hearing, the Honorable Joseph O’Neill of the Municipal 

____________________________________________

1 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31).

2 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16).
J-S64043-16

- 2 -

Court denied the motion to suppress. The same day, Judge O’Neill held a 

stipulated bench trial, convicted Appellant of both charges, and imposed an 

aggregate sentence of sixty days incarceration.

Appellant appealed and chose to request a trial de novo in the Court of 

Common Pleas. The Commonwealth withdrew the charge of possessing a 

controlled substance. On December 20, 2010, Judge Robert P. Coleman 

held a bench trial at which Appellant again stipulated to the record made at 

the Municipal Court suppression hearing. Judge Coleman convicted 

Appellant of possession of a small amount of marijuana and sentenced 

Appellant to thirty days probation and fifty hours of community service. This 

timely appeal followed.

The sole issue Appellant raises on appeal is whether the lower court 

erred in denying his suppression motion. The Commonwealth argues that 

Appellant waived this claim on appeal as he failed to raise it before the Court 

of Common Pleas after his trial de novo. 

Upon a conviction in the Philadelphia Municipal Court, an appellant has 

two options to proceed on appeal: a defendant may 1) request a trial de 

novo or 2) file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Court of Common 

Pleas. Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111, 1118–19 (Pa.Super. 

2011) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 1006) (some citations omitted). “A trial de novo

gives the defendant a new trial without reference to the Municipal Court 

record; a petition for writ of certiorari asks the Common Pleas Court to 

review the record made in the Municipal Court.” Commonwealth v. 
J-S64043-16

- 3 -

Beaufort, 112 A.3d 1267, 1269 (Pa.Super. 2015) (quoting 

Commonwealth v. Menezes, 871 A.2d 204, 207 n. 2 (Pa.Super. 2005)). 

In Beaufort, this Court found that the defendant waived his desired claim 

for purposes of appellate review as he first raised the issue in a pre-trial 

motion in the Municipal Court but failed to raise it again before the Court of 

Common Pleas in his trial de novo. We held that when a defendant is 

afforded a trial de novo, any matter pertaining to the proceedings before the 

magistrate are rendered irrelevant. Beaufort, 112 A.3d at 1269 (citing 

Commonwealth v. Appel, 652 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa.Super. 1994)).

In the same manner, Appellant filed a suppression motion before the 

Municipal Court, which was denied. After electing to proceed to a trial de 

novo in the Court of Common Pleas, Appellant failed to raise his suppression 

challenge before the trial court. Appellant’s failure to preserve the issue 

below results in waiver of the claim. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not 

raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time 

on appeal”).

For the foregoing reason, we affirm.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
J-S64043-16

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/9/2016