Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2002 Pa. Super. 406

814 A.2d 249

Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 20, 2002

Superior Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2002-12-20

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 2026

10 state decisions

Relies on 406 Pa. Super. 286 - Commonwealth v. Doleno · 2001 Pa. Super. 59 - Commonwealth v. Parks

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-12-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BECK, J.,

¶1Concurring.

¶2¶ 1 I agree with the majority that judgment of sentence should be vacated and the case remanded for a hearing on the issue of the cause of appellant’s failure to appear at the de novo hearing. Appellant is entitled to an opportunity to present a defense, explaining his reasons for his absence. It is my judgment, however, that where a defendant fails to appear in court because he missed his bus, and fails to make a timely communication with the court to explain what happened, he does not provide a sufficient excuse. I therefore distinguish the circumstances of the instant case from Commonwealth v. Doleno, 406 Pa.Super. 286, 594 A.2d 341 (1991) (attorney’s scheduling error) or Commonwealth v. Parks, 768 A.2d 1168 (Pa.Super.2001) (failure of the clerk of court to provide proper notice).

/2002/pasuper/406 · .json · Public domain