Commonwealth v. Heyboer

280 A.3d 331

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Mary HEYBOER (Estate of Mary Olinde Heyboer), Appellant

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.Mary Heyboer (Estate of Mary Olinde Heyboer), Appellant

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

v.Mary Heyboer (Estate of Mary Olinde Heyboer), Appellant

No. 1418 EDA 2021

No. 1419 EDA 2021

No. 1420 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 4, 2022

Filed July 26, 2022

Elizabeth J. Anderson, Hawley, for appellant.

David Nicholas Marra, Assistant District Attorney, Stroudsburg, Commonwealth, appellee.

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

OPINION BY STABILE, J.:

Appellant, Mary Heyboer (now, the Estate of Mary Olinde Heyboer), appeals from the judgments entered in these consolidated cases on June 15, 2021, in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, which granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by Appellee, the Commonwealth, and denied Appellant's Motion to Abate Summary Charges. Following review, we vacate the judgments against Appellant and direct that the charges against Appellant be abated.

In its Rule 1925(a) opinion, the trial court explained:

The matter concerns [Appellant's] appeal to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. After three Great Danes were seized from [Appellant] based upon a search warrant, six summary citations were filed against her for denying the dogs the necessary veterinary care and neglect of animals, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5532(a)(1), [3]. Following a summary trial, three of the citations pertaining to veterinary care were dismissed and [Appellant] was found guilty of the remaining citations related to neglect/cruelty to animals. [Appellant] then filed timely summary appeals pertaining to these convictions. On November 23, 2020, prior to a de novo trial, [Appellant] unexpectedly died. Thereafter, on February 5, 2021, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking to dismiss the summary appeals and requesting judgment of the issuing authority to be entered. On April 14, 2021, counsel for the now deceased [Appellant], filed a Motion to Abate Summary Charges on Appeal De Novo ("Motion"). [Appellant's] counsel suggests that the citations filed against [Appellant] should be dismissed in light of her death. On July 13, 2021, [Appellant's] counsel filed a Suggestion of Death.

On April 15, 2021, after hearing, this court took the matter under advisement. Thereafter, on June 11, 2021, we entered an order granting the Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss and denied [Appellant's] Motion.¹ Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D), we entered the judgments imposed by the issuing authority as follows: [restitution in the amount of $11,164.32 on docket No. 40 SA 2020 as well as fines and costs on all three dockets].

Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/22/21, at 1-2 (unnumbered).

On appeal, Appellant asks us to consider eleven issues. See Appellant's Brief at 7-8. Because we find the first three issues to be interrelated and collectively dispositive of this appeal, we limit our discussion to those three issues, which Appellant presents as follows:

1. Did the trial court err in entering a judgment which reinstated the Magistrate's conviction, fine, costs, restitution and forfeiture pursuant to [Pa.R.Crim.P.] 462 where [Appellant] failed to appear for her summary appeal hearing because she had passed away after the summary appeals were filed?

2. In mistakenly applying a Rule 462 analysis, in the alternative, did the trial court err in refusing to hold a summary appeal hearing?

3. Did the trial court err in entering a judgment which reinstated the Magistrate's conviction, fine, costs, restitution and forfeiture and instead, refused to abate the charges against the deceased defendant[?]

Appellant's Brief at 7.

The trial court ordered entry of judgment against Appellant after granting the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss "[p]ursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D)." Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/22/21, at 2 (unnumbered). As this Court observed in Commonwealth v. Dixon , 66 A.3d 794 (Pa. Super. 2013), our standard of review from the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to appear at a de novo hearing

is limited to whether the trial court committed an error of law and whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence. Commonwealth v. Askins , 761 A.2d 601, 603 (Pa. Super. 2000). The adjudication of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Id. "An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires a result of manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous." Commonwealth v. Diamond , 945 A.2d 252, 258 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation omitted).

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462 governs de novo trials following the appeal of a summary conviction. That rule states, in pertinent part, the following:

Rule 462. Trial De Novo

(A) When a defendant appeals after the entry of a guilty plea or a conviction by an issuing authority in any summary proceeding, upon the filing of the transcript and other papers by the issuing authority, the case shall be heard de novo by the judge of the court of common pleas sitting without a jury.

* * *

(D) If the defendant fails to appear, the trial judge may dismiss the appeal and enter judgment in the court of common pleas on the judgment of the issuing authority.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 462.

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, cmt. Therefore, before a summary appeal may be dismissed for failure to appear, the trial court must ascertain whether the absentee defendant had adequate cause for his absence. See Commonwealth v. Akinsanmi , 55 A.3d 539, 540–41 (Pa. Super. 2012). In the event that good cause is established, the defendant is entitled to a new summary trial. See [ Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi , 814 A.2d 249, 251, 253 (Pa. Super. 2002) ]; Commonwealth v. Doleno , 406 Pa. Super. 286, 594 A.2d 341, 343 (1991).

Id. at 796.

Here, the trial court noted that "while the rule does not specify a procedure where a defendant is deceased, it is clear that it is within the discretion of the court to dismiss the summary appeal when a defendant fails to appear." Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/22/21, at 3 (unnumbered). While we agree that it is within the court's discretion to dismiss a summary appeal when a defendant fails to appear, the comment to Rule 462 clearly contemplates an exercise of that discretion only "when the judge determines that the defendant is absent without cause." Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D), cmt.²

As this Court recognized in Akinsanmi ,

When a defendant does not appear for the summary appeal and does not provide an excuse, dismissal of the appeal is proper. Commonwealth v. Slomnicki , 773 A.2d 216, 218 (Pa. Commw. 2001). Conversely, when good cause for the absence is shown, a new trial should be granted. See Marizzaldi , 814 A.2d at 251, 253 (where appellant arrived ten minutes late due to missing bus and tardiness was not voluntary, appellant should have been given opportunity to present case); Commonwealth v. Mesler , 732 A.2d 21, 25 (Pa. Commw. 1999) (where appellant's counsel was present and represented that appellant was on [his] way, appeal should not have been dismissed); Commonwealth v. Doleno , 406 Pa. Super. 286, 594 A.2d 341, 343–44 (1991) (where appellant's attorney told appellant wrong date, absence was not voluntary; good cause shown).

Id. , 55 A.3d at 540-41.³

While neither we nor the parties have come across any case law establishing that a defendant's death constitutes "good cause" sufficient to excuse an appearance at a trial de novo , common sense dictates that it does. Certainly, if missing a bus constitutes good cause to excuse an appearance, Marizzaldi , so does dying. We find the trial court erred in granting the Commonwealth's motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D), i.e. , on the grounds that Appellant was absent from her trial de novo without cause. The judgments entered by the trial court therefore, must be vacated.

In the wake of vacating the judgments improperly entered, we next consider whether any further prosecution of the charges against Appellant is available or appropriate in the trial court. We conclude there is not.

Appellant was entitled to a de novo trial in accordance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(A). The trial court acknowledged, "I'm not a reviewing court." Notes of Testimony ("N.T."), 4/15/21, at 8. Nevertheless, by ordering that the judgment entered by the magisterial district judge ("MDJ") be entered as a judgment in the court of common pleas, the trial court in effect affirmed the order of the MDJ without giving Appellant the benefit of the trial de novo to which she was entitled. See Commonwealth v. Krut , 311 Pa.Super. 64, 457 A.2d 114, 116 (1983) (when an appellant has perfected an appeal to the court of common pleas, the case must be retried as if the prior summary proceedings had not occurred, that is, de novo , as if it had not heard been before and as though no decision had been rendered previously.)

We recognize, as did the trial court, that there was discussion during the April 15, 2021 proceeding about holding a hearing without Appellant being present. Trial Court Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 9/22/21, at 4 (unnumbered) (citing N.T., 4/15/21, at 4). See also N.T., 4/15/21, at 4-5, 11-14. Relative to conducting a hearing without the deceased party present, our Supreme Court has addressed the merits of such a case in the context of a direct appeal. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Walker , 447 Pa. 146, 288 A.2d 741 (1972). However, Walker as well as Commonwealth v. Beaudoin , 182 A.3d 1009 (Pa. Super. 2018), and post- Walker cases cited in Beaudoin , id. at 1010, involved Pa.R.A.P. 502, which provides for procedures in the...