J-S32020-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHRISTIE ROSARIO
Appellant No. 2985 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered August 25, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No: CP-45-SA-0000096-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2017
Appellant Christine Rosario pro se appeals from the August 25, 2016
judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe
County (“trial court”), following her summary conviction for violating Section
13-1333(a)(1) of the Public School Code (“Code”), 24 P.S. § 13-1333(a)(1),
governing compulsory school attendance. Upon review, we dismiss the
instant appeal.
The facts and procedural history of this case are undisputed. Briefly,
on June 3, 2015, Appellant was charged under Section 13-1333(a)(1) of the
Code as a result of her daughter’s nine unexcused absences from
elementary school during the 2014-2015 school year. Section 13-
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S32020-17
1333(a)(1) provides in pertinent part that “[e]very parent . . . having control
or charge of any child or children of compulsory school age, who shall fail to
comply with the provisions of this act . . . shall on summary conviction
thereof, be sentenced to pay a fine . . . not exceeding $300.” 1 24 P.S. § 13-
1333(a)(1). On May 9, 2016, a magisterial district judge (“MDJ”) found
Appellant guilty under Section 13-1333(a)(1). On June 21, 2016, more than
30 days after her conviction, Appellant filed a summary appeal to the trial
court. Following a de novo hearing, the trial court found Appellant guilty of
violating Section 13-1333(a)(1) and sentenced her to a fine of $300.
Appellant appealed to this Court.
Upon our review of the record, we dismiss the instant appeal for want
of jurisdiction. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 460,
Appellant was required to file her summary appeal in the trial court “within
30 days after the entry of . . . conviction.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 460. The question
of timeliness of an appeal is jurisdictional. Commonwealth v. Moir, 766
A.2d 1253, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2000). Here, Appellant appealed her May 9,
2016 conviction on June 21, 2016, more than 30 days after her conviction
before the MDJ. Moreover, our review of the de novo hearing transcript
reveals that Appellant failed to explain why she filed the notice of appeal
____________________________________________
1
The General Assembly has amended the Code, including Section 13-1333,
effective November 3, 2016. As this case arose in June 2015, the
amendments do not apply.
-2-
J-S32020-17
more than 30 days after her May 9, 2016 conviction. Additionally, the trial
court docket is bereft of any indication that Appellant attempted to request
any nunc pro tunc relief to cure the untimeliness of her summary appeal.
Thus, the trial court was without jurisdiction to entertain Appellant’s
summary appeal. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, we dismiss the
instant appeal.2
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/18/2017
____________________________________________
2
Even if we could have addressed Appellant’s claims on appeal, we would
have rejected them because she challenges only the trial court’s weight of
the evidence and credibility determinations. It is well-settled that this Court
may not re-weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial
court sitting as the fact-finder. See Commonwealth v. Queen, 639 A.2d
443, 445 (Pa. 1994) (noting that an appellate court may “not substitute [its]
credibility determinations for that of the suppression court.”).
-3-
Com. v. Rosario, C.
Combined Opinion