J-A19029-15 

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA 

 Appellee 

v. 

THOMAS ROBERT MILLER, JR. 

 Appellant No. 1105 WDA 2014 

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence June 4, 2014 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-04-CR-0001194-2013 

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

JUDGMENT ORDER BY JENKINS, J.: FILED JULY 16, 2015

Appellant Thomas Robert Miller, Jr. appeals from the judgment of 

sentence following his in absentia bench trial conviction for DUI, high rate of 

alcohol, first offense.1 We affirm. 

On June 2, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., after conducting a trial “in absentia, at 

which time defense counsel was given every opportunity to cross-examine 

the Commonwealth’s witnesses and to contest the evidence presented by 

the Commonwealth”,2 the court found Appellant guilty of DUI, high rate of 

____________________________________________ 

1

 75 Pa.C.S. 3802(b). 

2

 Trial Court Order, filed August 25, 2014. 
J-A19029-15 

- 2 - 

alcohol.3 On June 4, 2014, the court sentenced Appellant to 6 months of 

intermediate punishment and 48 hours of electronic monitoring. Appellant’s 

license was suspended for one year. 

On July 3, 2014, Appellant filed a notice of appeal. That same day, 

the court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained 

of on appeal, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) by July 18, 2014.4 Appellant 

complied on July 17, 2014. On August 11, 2014, the court ordered 

Appellant to pay for the transcription of the record by August 18, 2014. On 

August 25, 2014, after Appellant failed to comply with its order, the court 

issued an order dismissing Appellant’s issues for lack of a record to address 

the same. On August 27, 2014, a certified record that did not include the 

Notes of Testimony from Appellant’s non-jury trial or his colloquy about his 

notice of the trial was filed in this Court. 

Appellant raises three issues on appeal. In his first issue, Appellant 

argues the non-jury trial held in absentia was improper because Appellant 

did not willfully fail to appear for trial. In his second and third issues, 

Appellant challenges the admission of evidence. Appellant argues that there 

is a gap in the chain of custody of Appellant’s blood such that Appellant’s 

____________________________________________ 

3

 The court acquitted Appellant of DUI, general impairment, and the 

Commonwealth dropped the charge of possession with intent to use drug 

paraphernalia. 

4

 The trial court only allowed Appellant 15 days to file his concise statement, 

as opposed to at least 21 days, as specified by Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(2). 
J-A19029-15 

- 3 - 

blood sample was not properly protected, and that the Commonwealth failed 

to present evidence about the certification of the machine used to test his 

blood. 

Preliminarily, “it is the appellant’s duty to ensure that the certified 

record is complete for purposes of review.” Commonwealth v. Little, 879 

A.2d 293, 301 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 890 A.2d 1057 (Pa.2005) 

(quoting Commonwealth v. Dehart, 730 A.2d 991, 993 n. 1 

(Pa.Super.1999), appeal denied, 745 A.2d 1218 (Pa.1999)). “A failure by 

Appellant to insure that the original record certified for appeal contains 

sufficient information to conduct a proper review constitutes waiver of the 

issue sought to be examined.” Commonwealth v. Martz, 926 A.2d 514, 

525 (Pa.Super.2007). “[I]f the appellant caused a delay or other problems 

in transmitting the certified record, then he or she is not entitled to relief 

and the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.” Commonwealth 

v. Bongiorno, 905 A.2d 998, 1001 (Pa.Super.2006). 

Although Appellant eventually filed a certified record, the record is 

missing the Notes of Testimony from the hearing and the colloquy about the 

trial notice during which he alleges the Commonwealth failed to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that he willfully missed his trial. Without this 

testimony, we cannot determine whether this claim or Appellant’s 

evidentiary claims have any merit. Accordingly, his claims are waived. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 
J-A19029-15 

- 4 - 

Judgment Entered. 

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. 

Prothonotary 

Date: 7/16/2015