Com. v. Beaufort, M.

J-S77031-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
MICHAEL T. BEAUFORT, :
:
Appellant : No. 787 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered February 21, 2014
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009076-2013
MC-51-CR-0014862-2012
BEFORE: STABILE, JENKINS, and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 11, 2015
Michael T. Beaufort (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered February 21, 2014, following his conviction for two counts of driving
under the influence (DUI). For the following reasons, we affirm.
On April 12, 2012, Appellant was arrested and charged with, inter alia,
DUI. His case was listed for trial in Philadelphia’s Municipal Court. Prior to
trial, Appellant moved for dismissal of his case pursuant to the municipal
court prompt trial rule, Pa.R.Crim.P. 1013.1 That motion was denied,
following a hearing, on February 22, 2013. On April 10, 2013, Appellant
proceeded to a stipulated trial in Municipal Court and was found guilty of
1
The rule reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “Trial in a municipal court case
shall commence no later than 180 days from the date on which the
preliminary arraignment is held.” Pa. R. Crim. P. 1013(A)(1).
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S77031-14
DUI. On June 17, 2013, Appellant was sentenced to a term of 72 hours to
four months of incarceration and a concurrent six month term of probation.
On July 17, 2013, Appellant filed an appeal in the Court of Common
Pleas seeking a trial de novo. On January 27, 2014, following a waiver trial,
Appellant was found guilty of two counts of DUI. On February 3, 2014,
Appellant filed a motion for extraordinary relief with the Court of Common
Pleas again seeking appellate review of the Municipal Court’s denial of his
Rule 1013 motion to dismiss. On February 21, 2014, the court denied
Appellant’s motion and sentenced him to 60 days to six months of
incarceration and a concurrent term of six months’ probation. Appellant filed
a motion for reconsideration which was denied following a hearing on March
6, 2014. This timely appeal followed. Appellant complied with the trial
court’s request to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Appellant raises a single issue for our review: whether the Municipal
Court erred in denying his request for dismissal under Rule 1013. Appellant’s
Brief at 2. This claim is moot.
An appellant convicted in Philadelphia’s Municipal Court has two
appellate options.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1006(1)(a) provides
that a defendant convicted in Philadelphia Municipal Court has
the right to request either a trial de novo or file a petition for a
writ of certiorari with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
This Court has held that when a defendant files a petition for a
-2-
J-S77031-14
writ of certiorari, the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas sits as
an appellate court.
Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111, 1118-19 (Pa. Super. 2011)
(citations omitted). “A trial de novo gives the defendant a new trial without
reference to the Municipal Court record; a petition for writ of certiorari asks
the Common Pleas Court to review the record made in the Municipal Court.”
Commonwealth v. Menezes, 871 A.2d 204, 207 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2005).
These options are mutually exclusive. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1008(A) (“The notice [of
appeal from a Municipal Court ruling] shall state which method of review is
being sought in the court of common pleas by indicating whether it is a
notice of appeal or notice of a petition for a writ of certiorari.”).
Appellant’s claim that the Municipal Court erred in denying his Rule
1013 motion was reviewable by writ of certiorari. See Commonwealth v.
Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006); Commonwealth v. Staten, 950
A.2d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2008). However, because he forewent that option in
favor of proceeding to a trial de novo, the issue of whether he was timely
tried in the Municipal Court became moot. Commonwealth v. Appel, 218,
652 A.2d 341, 343 (Pa. Super. 1994) (“Appellant was afforded a trial de
novo and, therefore, matters pertaining to the proceedings before the
district magistrate are irrelevant.” ). Thus, the Court of Common Pleas did
not err in declining to address Appellant’s issue.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-3-
J-S77031-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/11/2015
-4-