Com. v. Ascenzi, M. (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-A15006-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. MICHAEL ASCENZI Appellant No. 1346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, J-A15006-17 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.”). -2- J-A15006-17 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 -3- Circulated 07/21/2017 12:42 PM
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
