Court Opinion

ID: 9962594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 20:13:53.661676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.245322
License: Public Domain

J-S04038-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                 :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  BARBARA C. GONCALVES                         :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 930 EDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 13, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division
                     at No(s): CP-48-SA-0000340-2022

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and LANE, J.

MEMORANDUM BY LANE, J.:                                  FILED APRIL 23, 2024

       Barbara C. Goncalves (“Goncalves”) appeals pro se from the judgment

of sentence imposed following her summary conviction for duties at stop

signs.1 We affirm.

       In February 2022, Goncalves stopped at a stop sign but failed to yield

the right-of-way to an approaching vehicle, forcing the other vehicle off the

roadway.      The other driver reported the incident to police, and Officer

Christopher Pfancook issued a citation to Goncalves. After Goncalves pleaded

not guilty to the citation, the matter proceeded to a hearing before a

magisterial district judge in November 2022. Despite receiving notice of the

____________________________________________

1 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3323(b).
J-S04038-24

hearing,2 Goncalves failed to appear.          Accordingly, the magisterial district

judge found Goncalves guilty in absentia of the summary offense and entered

a judgment of sentence imposing a $25.00 fine plus costs.

       Goncalves filed a timely pro se notice of appeal to the court of common

pleas. The matter was scheduled for a trial de novo at 9:00 a.m. on March

13, 2023. At the designated time for the scheduled trial de novo, the attorney

for the Commonwealth and Officer Pfancook were present; however,

Goncalves failed to appear. See N.T., 3/13/23, at 2. Accordingly, after the

case was called and the Commonwealth moved for dismissal, the trial court

entered an order dismissing the appeal. Id.

       Later that morning, Goncalves appeared at the courthouse and had an

outburst in the courtroom hallway. The trial court conducted a brief contempt

hearing at which a member of the judge’s staff testified that she saw

Goncalves in the courthouse hallway at approximately 10:01 a.m. Id. at 3.

The staff member informed Goncalves that her appeal had already been

dismissed and that Officer Pfancook had left the courthouse. Id. Goncalves

then called the staff member “a f**king bitch,” and yelled “f**k you, you

f**king bitch several times going down the hallway . . . [y]elling all the way

down the hallway [so] that other people in this courthouse heard it as well.”

____________________________________________

2 Goncalves does not dispute that she received notice of the hearing and
concedes that the citation was mailed to her mailing address. See Goncalves’
Brief at 6.

                                           -2-
J-S04038-24

Id. at 3-4. Goncalves apologized for her conduct and informed the court that

her husband had just died and that she had been screaming at people since

his death. Id. at 4-5. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court accepted

her apology and indicated its decision not to hold her in contempt. Id. at 5.

       Goncalves filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court. The trial court

ordered Goncalves to file of record a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of

matters complained of on appeal within twenty-one days.3 Goncalves did not

comply with that directive. The trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion in

which it concluded, inter alia, that Goncalves’ appeal was appropriately

dismissed due to her failure to appear for the trial de novo. See Trial Court

Opinion, 5/19/23, at 2.

       In her brief, Goncalves purports to raise the following issues for our

review:

       1. Is there a stop line at the alleged intersection of failure to yield
          right of way?

       2. Was Officer       Pfancook     present   when   the   offense   was
          committed?

       3. Was Officer Pfancook present at the scene when the ticket was
          issued?

       4. Was the complainant or Officer Pfancook able to prove an
          offense was committed?
____________________________________________

3 The trial court docket reflects the date the order was received in the clerk’s

office, the date appearing on the order, the date and manner of service of the
order, and that the order was promptly served on Goncalves.               See
Pa.R.Crim.P. 114(B)(1), (C)(2). However, we decline to find waiver because
the order did not comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(3)(iii).

                                           -3-
J-S04038-24

      5. Should we allow common citizens to issue stop traffic tickets
         without the police officer being present and/or witnessing the
         violation?

      6. And lastly, did officer Pfancook issue a ticket, which affect [sic]
         a driver [sic] driving record for three to five years, with enough
         proof and evidence that . . . Goncalves was guilty beyond a
         reasonable doubt?

Goncalves’ Brief at 5-6.

      Our standard of review from an appeal of a summary conviction heard

de novo by the trial court is limited to a determination of whether an error of

law has been committed and whether the findings of fact are supported by

competent evidence.     See Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa.

Super. 2002).    The adjudication of the trial court will not be disturbed on

appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. See Commonwealth v. Parks,

768 A. 2d 1168, 1171 (Pa. Super. 2001).

      Initially, we must determine whether this Court has jurisdiction to

address the issues presented by Goncalves. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal

Procedure 462 governs de novo trials following the appeal of a summary

conviction. When a defendant appeals the entry of a conviction by an issuing

authority in a summary proceeding, the case shall be heard de novo by a

judge of the court of common pleas sitting without a jury. See Pa.R.Crim.P.

462(A). The attorney for the Commonwealth may appear and assume charge

of the prosecution.   See Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(B).       In appeals from summary

proceedings arising under the Vehicle Code, the law enforcement officer who

                                      -4-
J-S04038-24

observed the alleged offense must appear and testify.       See Pa.R.Crim.P.

462(C). A continuance of a trial de novo may be granted in summary cases

provided the identity of the moving party and the reasons for the continuance

are stated of record. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 106(C).

      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. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(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 judge determines that the

defendant is absent without cause from the trial de novo.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 462,

Comment. Therefore, before a trial court may dismiss a summary appeal for

failure to appear, the court must ascertain whether the absentee defendant

had cause for the absence. See Commonwealth v. Dixon, 66 A.3d 794,

796 (Pa. Super. 2013). If good cause is established, the defendant is entitled

to a new summary trial de novo. Id.

      Unfortunately, the “without cause” inquiry often falls to this Court to

conduct in the first instance:

             The problem that arises in these types of cases is that, for
      a quite obvious reason, trial courts often dismiss the appeals
      without inquiring into whether the absentee defendant had good
      cause: the person who could offer cause for the absence is the
      absent defendant himself. In other words, there is no one present
      in the courtroom whom the trial judge can question regarding the
      reasons for the absence. Moreover, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
      720(D), a defendant in a summary appeal case is not permitted
      to file post-sentence motions. The trial court cannot question an
      absent defendant regarding the cause of the absence, and the

                                     -5-
J-S04038-24

       defendant cannot file post-sentence motions to explain the
       absence.   Consequently, this Court often must address the
       necessary cause inquiry arising from Pa.R.Crim.P. 462 in the first
       instance. This is precisely the task that we face in the instant
       matter.

Id. at 796-97.

       Given this conundrum, the Dixon Court concluded that a new trial de

novo is required when:

       (1) a trial court dismisses a summary appeal without considering
       whether the absentee defendant had cause to justify the absence;
       and (2) the absentee defendant presents an affidavit on
       appeal that (assuming the assertions delineated in the affidavit
       are true) presents at least a prima facie demonstration that cause
       existed for the absence, rendering that absence involuntary.

Id. at 797 (emphasis added) (interpreting Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi,

814 A.2d 249 (Pa. Super. 2002) (remanding for a new trial de novo where the

appellant attached an affidavit to his appellate brief indicating that his absence

was not voluntary)).

       In the instant matter, the transcript reflects that, prior to dismissing her

appeal, the trial court did not make a finding on the record as to whether

Goncalves’ absence was without cause. See N.T., 3/13/23, at 2.4 As such,

Goncalves was required to provide this Court with an affidavit presenting at

____________________________________________

4 As indicated above, the trial court conducted a brief hearing on the record

approximately one hour after the appeal had been dismissed; however, that
hearing appears to have been solely to address whether Goncalves should be
held in contempt due to her outburst in the courtroom hallway.

                                           -6-
J-S04038-24

least a prima facie demonstration that her absence from the trial de novo was

involuntary. See Dixon, 66 A.3d at 797.

       Goncalves has not attached to her appellate brief a sworn affidavit

attesting that her failure to appear at the trial de novo was involuntary.5 Thus,

while we acknowledge Goncalves’ hardships, we cannot grant her relief. See

Dixon, 66 A.3d 797; see also Commonwealth v. Maslonek, 262 A.3d 457

(Pa.   Super.     2021)     (unpublished       memorandum)   (following   Dixon’s

requirement that the appellant must present a sworn affidavit on appeal and

noting that, even if accepted as true, the unsworn averments in the appellate

brief were insufficient to warrant relief); Commonwealth v. Cogley, 219

A.3d 259 (Pa. Super. 2019) (unpublished memorandum) (following Dixon and

noting that the appellant did not include an affidavit with his brief to explain

his absence from the trial de novo).6

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

5 Goncalves concedes that she was aware of the time, date, and location of

the hearing. Indeed, Goncalves states in her brief that she “was present at
the hearing but was not her [sic] right mind and had a mental breakdown
outside the court room [sic] because her husband subsequently died four days
before the hearing.” Goncalves’ Brief at 7. Although Goncalves attached to
her brief a “Verification of Death” form indicating the date of death for an
individual named “Paul Frisco Mitchell” as March 8, 2023, without a sworn
affidavit from Goncalves attesting that Mitchell was her husband and
indicating why his death rendered her failure to appear at the trial de novo
involuntary, this Court cannot grant her relief.

6 Unpublished memorandum decisions of the Superior Court filed after May

1, 2019, may be cited for their persuasive value. See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b).

                                           -7-
J-S04038-24

Date: 4/23/2024

                  -8-