Com. v. Brown D., Com. v. Brown D. No. 3378 EDA 2015

On July 25, 2014, Donald W. Brown Jr. was charged in Philadelphia Municipal Court with resisting arrest and disorderly conduct after confronting a cashier and SEPTA officer and fleeing, during which an officer’s hand was broken.
Brown was convicted after a bench trial in Municipal Court on July 16, 2015 and sentenced to nine months’ probation.
Brown timely appealed and requested a trial de novo in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, set for October 19, 2015; he signed a subpoena on August 3, 2015 containing notice of the date.
Brown failed to appear for the de novo trial; his counsel could not contact him and acknowledged dismissal was appropriate. The Common Pleas judge dismissed the appeal, reinstated the Municipal Court sentence, and issued a bench warrant.
Brown later appeared in Municipal Court, offered no excuse for the absence, did not move for reconsideration, and then appealed to the Superior Court.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal of the de novo appeal violated Brown’s constitutional right to a jury trial	Brown argued the Court of Common Pleas deprived him of a jury trial by dismissing the de novo appeal and reinstating the Municipal Court conviction	Commonwealth argued Brown waived such arguments by failing to raise them below and that summary offenses do not carry a jury right when sentence ≤ 6 months	Waived; appellate court declined to address because claim not raised at trial and no jury right for summary offenses with max ≤ 6 months (procedural waiver and substantive inapplicable right)
Whether dismissal was improper because Brown’s absence was not willful/voluntary (i.e., insufficient evidence of lack of good cause)	Brown argued the trial court erred in finding his absence willful and voluntary and thus erred in dismissing the de novo appeal	Commonwealth pointed to the subpoena notice, lengthy delay in court to allow Brown to appear, lack of any excuse from counsel or Brown, and Rule 1010(B) authority to dismiss absent a showing of good cause	Affirmed; record supports that Brown failed to show good cause, trial court’s credibility findings appropriate, dismissal proper under Rule 1010(B)

Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111 (distinguishes trial de novo from certiorari in Municipal Court appeals)
Beaufort, 112 A.3d 1267 (trial de novo makes prior Municipal Court proceedings irrelevant)
Dixon, 66 A.3d 794 (standard of review: abuse of discretion for factual/weight findings)
Miller, 80 A.3d 806 (constitutional issues not raised below are waived)
Smith, 868 A.2d 1253 (no jury right for summary offenses when sentence of six months or less imposed)
Akinsanmi, 55 A.3d 539 (dismissal of appeal proper where defendant absent and does not show good cause)
Sanchez, 907 A.2d 477 (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility and weight determinations)