Case Information
*-715 Circulated 07/21/2017 12:42 PM NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v.
MICHAEL ASCENZI
Appellant No. 1346 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence July 13, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-40-SA-0000158-2016 CP-40-SA-0000159-2016 BEFORE: MOULTON, J., SOLANO, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MOULTON, J.: FILED AUGUST 02, 2017
Michael Ascenzi appeals, pro se , from the July 13, 2016 judgment of sentence entered in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas following his
convictions for exceeding the maximum speed, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3362, and
driving while operating privilege suspended, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543(a). We
affirm.
The trial court thoroughly summarized the facts underlying this appeal in its Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(a) opinion, which we
adopt and incorporate herein. See Opinion, 1/13/17, at 1-3.
On April 12, 2016, Magisterial District Judge (“MDJ”) Alexandra Kokura Kravitz, whose district includes Jenkins Township, convicted Ascenzi of the
above-referenced offenses. Ascenzi filed a summary appeal with the trial
court, which held an evidentiary hearing on July 13, 2016. At the hearing,
Ascenzi challenged MDJ Kravitz’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, arguing
that the arresting officer, Officer Christopher Purcell, should have filed the
citations with the MDJ in neighboring Plains Township. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the trial court: determined that MDJ Kravitz had jurisdiction;
found Ascenzi guilty of both offenses; and sentenced Ascenzi to pay a
$1,000 fine plus costs. Ascenzi timely appealed to this Court.
On appeal, Ascenzi asserts that the trial court erred in concluding that MDJ Kravitz had jurisdiction to adjudicate his traffic citations. [1] Ascenzi
contends that because Officer Purcell stopped Ascenzi’s vehicle in Plains
Township, Officer Purcell should have filed the citations with the MDJ in
Plains Township. We disagree.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 130 provides: “All criminal proceedings in summary and court cases shall be brought before the issuing
____________________________________________
[1] In his statement of questions involved, Ascenzi also purports to challenge the legality of his sentence, see Ascenzi’s Br. at 3, an issue not
raised in his Rule 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal.
Although the legality of a sentence is generally a non-waivable issue, we find
Ascenzi’s sentencing claim waived because he failed to develop it in a
manner making meaningful appellate review possible. See
Commonwealth v. Love , 896 A.2d 1276, 1287-88 (Pa.Super. 2006)
(finding legality of sentence claim waived for appellant’s “fail[ure] to present
any argument whatsoever ” in his brief). Ascenzi does not discuss the issue
in the argument section of his brief, nor did he address it during oral
argument before this Court. See Commonwealth v. Johnson , 985 A.2d
915, 924 (Pa. 2009) (“[W]here an appellate brief fails to provide any
discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the
issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is
waived.”).
authority for the magisterial district in which the offense is alleged to
have occurred or before an issuing authority on temporary assignment to
serve such magisterial district . . . .” Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(A) (emphasis
added). Here, the evidence established that Ascenzi committed the traffic
offenses within the boundaries of Jenkins Township and, thus, within MDJ
Kravitz’s district. Officer Purcell testified that State Road 315 traverses
approximately 500-600 feet through Jenkins Township and that Ascenzi was
traveling on that portion of State Road 315 when he committed the offenses.
N.T., 7/13/16, at 5, 10. The trial court, as the factfinder, credited Officer
Purcell’s testimony. See id. at 16-17. Therefore, we conclude that MDJ
Kravitz had jurisdiction over Ascenzi’s citations under Rule 130(A).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/2/2017