J-A20025-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DAVID TYRONE TRICE, JR. 

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 332 WDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered February 13, 2018

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-02-SA-0002364-2017

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 14, 2018

David Tyrone Trice, Jr., appeals from the order, entered in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Allegheny County, following his summary convictions for two 

counts each of driving an unregistered vehicle,1 operating a vehicle without 

valid inspection,2 and evidence of emission inspection3 (docket no. 2364 of 

2017). After review, we vacate and remand.

Trice was found guilty of the above-mentioned summary offenses and 

ordered to pay a $150 fine, plus costs. Trice filed a summary appeal from the 

convictions. Both Trice’s arresting officer and Trice failed to appear for the de 

novo hearing that was held on February 13, 2018. Accordingly, the trial court 

____________________________________________

1 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1301(a).

2 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4703(a).

3 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4704(c)(5).
J-A20025-18

- 2 -

dismissed the summary appeal and judgment was entered against Trice. See

Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D). This timely pro se appeal follows.

While utterly devoid of any required content for headings and sections 

as prescribed in the Rules of Appellate Procedure, Trice argues that he was 

unable to attend his de novo hearing because “[he] was unable to call off of 

work due to [his] new start and unste[a]dy schedule.” Appellant’s Brief, at 1.

Pursuant to Rule 462:

* * *

(C) In appeals from summary proceedings arising under the 

Vehicle Code or local traffic ordinances, other than parking 

offenses, the law enforcement officer who observed the alleged 

offense must appear and testify. The failure of a law enforcement 

officer to appear and testify shall result in the dismissal of the 

charges unless:

(1) the defendant waives the presence of the law 

enforcement officer in open court on the record;

(2) the defendant waives the presence of the law 

enforcement officer by filing a written waiver signed by the 

defendant and defense counsel, or the defendant if 

proceeding pro se, with the clerk of courts; or

(3) the trial judge determines that good cause exists for 

the law enforcement officer’s unavailability and grants a 

continuance.

(D) If the defendant fails to appear [for a trial de novo], the trial 

judge may dismiss the appeal and enter judgment in the court of 

common pleas on the judgment of the issuing authority[.]

Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(C), (D). The Comment to Rule 462 explains that 

“[p]aragraph D makes it clear that the trial judge may dismiss a summary 

case appeal when the trial judge determines that the defendant is absent 
J-A20025-18

- 3 -

without cause from the trial de novo.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D), comment 

(emphasis added).

Here, the notes from the summary appeal indicate that in addition to 

Trice’s absence, Trice’s arresting officer was also not present at the 

proceeding. See N.T. Summary Appeal, 2/13/18, at 3. There is nothing in 

the record indicating that Trice waived the presence of the officer via a written 

waiver or that the trial judge determined that good cause existed for the 

officer’s unavailability. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(C)(2)-(3). Moreover, with 

regard to Trice’s failure to appear under subsection (D), the court never 

inquired into whether Trice had good cause to justify his absence from the de 

novo trial. Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249 (Pa. Super 2002). 

See Commonwealth v. Peralta, 173 A.3d 813, 816 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“Rule 

462 provides that if the defendant fails to appear, the trial judge may dismiss 

the appeal[;]” “in counties outside of Philadelphia, the trial judge has 

discretion to dismiss the appeal when no cause is shown.”) (emphasis in 

original and added).

Instantly, the trial court states in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that 

“[d]ismissal was proper, even though the officer also failed to appear.” Trial 

Court Opinion, 3/28/18, at 2. The court cites to Commonwealth v. 

Akinsanmi, 55 A.3d 539 (Pa. Super. 2012) and Commonwealth v. Lowe, 

698 A.2d 607 (Pa. Super. 1997), to support its decision to dismiss the appeal 

because Trice did not appear for his hearing and failed to provide an excuse. 

We find both cases inapposite.
J-A20025-18

- 4 -

In Akinsanmi, the defendant received a traffic citation for parking 

where prohibited by sign in a Pittsburgh park. Defendant was found guilty of 

the summary offense; defendant filed a notice of appeal from the summary 

conviction. The trial court held a de novo hearing. When the defendant failed 

to appear for the hearing, the court dismissed the appeal and judgment was 

entered for the Commonwealth pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D). Defendant 

appealed the judgment, arguing that the traffic citation was improperly issued. 

Defendant did “not address her failure to attend the [de novo] hearing except 

to say . . . that she was unable to return from a research conference in time 

to attend the hearing.” 55 A.3d at 540. In affirming the court’s order entering 

judgment against the defendant our Court stated:

In the instant case, [Defendant] did not appear for the hearing. 

This was not a case of an involuntary absence, nor was it due to 

unforeseen circumstances. [Defendant] was attending a research 

conference. She does not explain why she did not seek a 

continuance given the scheduled conflict with her hearing. She 

does not offer any good cause for missing her hearing, other than 

being at a conference. This is not a good cause, an involuntary 

absence, or an unforeseen circumstance. The trial court properly 

dismissed the case upon [Defendant’s] failure to appear. We find 

no error in that action.

Id. at 541.

Notably, in Akinsanmi, there is nothing indicating that the defendant’s 

citing officer did not appear for the de novo hearing. Thus, the trial court’s 

reliance on that authority in the instant case is misleading. Rule 462 is clear 

that where an officer who observed the alleged offense fails to appear and 

testify at the trial de novo, the result is that the trial court “shall . . . dismiss[] 
J-A20025-18

- 5 -

the charges” where the three enumerated exceptions do not apply. 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(C) (emphasis added). The court fails to acknowledge how 

the citing officer’s absence was excused in any way under subsection (C) and

why Trice’s absence justified automatic dismissal of the appeal and judgment 

entered against him without first inquiring whether he was absent for good 

cause and in light of the officer’s absence.

We likewise find Lowe not applicable to the instant case. Rule 462 was 

amended in 2000 and was derived from former Rules of Criminal Procedure 

86(G) and 1117(c). Lowe was decided in 1997, prior to the enactment of 

Rule 462, and in accordance with now-repealed Rule 1117(c). Thus, we do 

not find it instructive in the instant matter.

Accordingly, where the trial court did not inquire into whether Trice had 

good cause to justify his absence from the de novo trial, Marizzaldi, supra, 

Trice’s citing officer was also not present at the proceeding, and there is 

nothing in the record indicating that Trice waived the presence of the officer 

via a written waiver or that the trial judge determined that good cause existed 

for the officer’s unavailability, Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(C)(2)-(3), we are compelled 

to vacate and remand the instant matter.4

Order vacated. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this 

decision. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

____________________________________________

4 Although Trice did not raise this issue, the clear language of Rule 462(C) 

compels this decision.
J-A20025-18

- 6 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/14/2018