Court Opinion

ID: 9395783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 16:11:34.063+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:11.212562
License: Public Domain

J-S09007-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 ALICIA A. SHEEHAN                       :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 794 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 18, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-11-SA-0000005-2022

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 ALICIA A. SHEEHAN                       :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 795 WDA 2022

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered April 18, 2022
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County Criminal Division at
                     No(s): CP-11-SA-0000006-2022

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:                        FILED: MAY 18, 2023

     Appellant, Alicia A. Sheehan, appeals from the aggregate judgment of

sentence of $400 in fines and the costs of prosecution, imposed after she was

convicted, in two separate cases, of two counts of operating an all-terrain

vehicle (ATV) on streets or highways, 75 Pa.C.S. § 7721(a).        Appellant

challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove that the vehicle she was
J-S09007-23

operating meets the definition of an “ATV” to support her conviction under

section 7721(a). After careful review, we quash these appeals.

        The facts of this case can be briefly summarized as follows. On October

24, 2021, Appellant was operating a Polaris Razor 1000 on a public roadway

in Cambria County, Pennsylvania.           Appellant was stopped by two different

officers and issued two citations for violations of section 7221(a), as well as

one citation for operating an unregistered vehicle, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1301. She

was subsequently found guilty of all three summary offenses before a

magisterial district judge. She filed a timely, summary appeal and, after a

hearing on April 18, 2022, the trial court convicted her of the two section

7721(a) offenses. The court found her not guilty of the section 1301 offense.

Appellant was sentenced that same day to the fines and costs set forth supra.

        On April 26, 2022, Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration. On May

5, 2022, the court issued an order scheduling a hearing on Appellant’s motion

for May 17, 2022. On May 12, 2022, the court granted the Commonwealth’s

request for a continuance of that hearing until June 6, 2022.         It does not

appear that a hearing on Appellant’s motion ever occurred, but on June 6,

2022, the court issued an order denying her motion for reconsideration.

Appellant filed a notice of appeal at each of her two separate docket numbers

on July 5, 2022.1

____________________________________________

1   This Court sua sponte consolidated Appellant’s appeals on July 7, 2022.

                                           -2-
J-S09007-23

        The court subsequently ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

concise statement of errors complained of on appeal, and she timely complied.

On September 1, 2022, the court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion concluding that

Appellant waived all her appellate claims based on her failure to have the

transcript of the April 18, 2022 summary appeal hearing prepared. Appellant

thereafter requested the pertinent transcript, and it was filed on November 1,

2022.     Consequently, the trial court issued a supplemental Rule 1925(a)

opinion discussing — and ultimately rejecting — the following, single issue

that Appellant presents for our review: “Did the trial court abuse its discretion

in refusing to apply the statutory definition of an ‘ATV’ in determining that …

Appellant was guilty of operating an ATV on the streets and highways in

violation of … 75 [Pa.C.S.] §[] 7721([a]).” Appellant’s Brief at 5.

        Initially, we must address the Commonwealth’s claim that we lack

jurisdiction to review Appellant’s issue, as her notice of appeal from her April

18, 2022 sentencing was untimely. A notice of appeal must be filed within 30

days after the entry of the order from which the appeal is taken. Pa.R.A.P.

903(a).    The time limitations for taking appeals are strictly construed and

cannot be extended as a matter of grace.                See Commonwealth v.

Valentine, 928 A.2d 346 (Pa. Super. 2007). This Court can raise the matter

sua sponte, as the issue is one of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Id.

This    Court   has   no   jurisdiction    to   entertain   an   untimely   appeal.

Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 (Pa. Super. 2007). Generally,

an appellate court may not enlarge the time for filing a notice of appeal.

                                          -3-
J-S09007-23

Pa.R.A.P. 105(b). Extension of the appeal filing period is permitted only in

extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud or some breakdown in the court’s

operation. Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995).

      Here, Appellant’s crime of operating an ATV on streets or highways is a

summary offense. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 7752(a). “[A] defendant convicted of a

summary offense is precluded from filing any post-sentence motions.”

Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 679 A.2d 779, 784 (Pa. Super. 1996). See

also Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(D) (stating there shall be no post-sentence motion in

summary case appeals following trial de novo). However,

      [e]xcept as otherwise provided or prescribed by law, a court upon
      notice to the parties may modify or rescind any order within 30
      days after its entry, notwithstanding the prior termination of any
      term of court, if no appeal from such order has been taken or
      allowed.

42 Pa.C.S. § 5505.       Thus, the trial court may act on a motion for

reconsideration of a sentence imposed for a summary offense, but when an

appellant files such a motion, they must also file a protective notice of appeal

to ensure preservation of their appellate rights in the event the court does not

expressly   grant   reconsideration   within   the   thirty-day   appeal   period.

Commonwealth v. Moir, 766 A.2d 1253, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2000).

      It is well-settled that, upon the filing of a motion for
      reconsideration, a trial court’s action in granting a rule to show
      cause and setting a hearing date is insufficient to toll the appeal
      period.      Rather, the trial court must expressly grant
      reconsideration within thirty days of entry of its order. Failure to
      expressly grant reconsideration within the time set by the rules
      for filing an appeal will cause the trial court to lose its power to
      act on the application for reconsideration.

                                      -4-
J-S09007-23

Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3) (stating that

the court may grant reconsideration of an order if an application for

reconsideration is filed and the court issues “an order expressly granting

reconsideration … within the time prescribed by these rules for the filing of a

notice of appeal”).

       Here, Appellant was convicted and sentenced on April 18, 2022. Thus,

she had until May 18, 2022, to file a timely appeal. While Appellant filed a

motion for reconsideration on April 26, 2022, the court’s order scheduling a

hearing on that motion did not expressly grant reconsideration. Thus, it did

not toll the 30-day appeal period.2 Because Appellant did not file her notice

of appeal until July 5, 2022, we must agree with the Commonwealth that it

was untimely. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction and must quash Appellant’s

appeals.3

       Appeals quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

____________________________________________

2We note that, after Appellant was sentenced at the close of the summary
appeal hearing, the court notified her that she had 30 days to file a notice of
appeal. See N.T., 4/18/22, at 35-36.

3 Even if we had jurisdiction to consider the issue Appellant raises herein, we
would conclude that it is meritless for the reasons set forth by the trial court
in its Supplemental Opinion Pursuant to Rule of Appellate Procedure
1925(a)(1) filed on November 21, 2022.            See Supplemental Opinion,
11/21/22, at 3-7.

                                           -5-
J-S09007-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 5/18/2023

                          -6-