Jump To

Top Caption [Combined Opinion

                  by Olson](https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10809933/com-v-sanders-k/#o1)

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Com. v. Sanders, K.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 414 WDA 2025
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Judges: Olson

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (65)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

                        by [Judith Ference Olson](https://www.courtlistener.com/person/8241/judith-ference-olson/)

J-A29022-25

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
KEITH LAMONT SANDERS :
:
Appellant : No. 414 WDA 2025

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 14, 2025
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-SA-0001688-2024

BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED: March 17, 2026

Appellant, Keith Lamont Sanders, appeals pro se from the judgment of

sentence entered on March 14, 2025. We affirm.

The trial court ably summarized the facts and procedural posture of this

appeal:

[Appellant] filed a summary appeal from his magisterial
district court conviction for disorderly conduct, in violation of
[18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1).] The [trial de novo] date of
March 14, 2025, at 8:15 a.m., was conspicuously
hand-written on the notice of appeal form by Department of
Court Records personnel and a copy was provided to
[Appellant]. The location of the [trial de novo] and the
Court’s telephone number [were] also on the notice of
appeal.

On March 14, 2025, [Appellant] failed to appear for the [trial
de novo] and the [arresting] officer did appear. . . .

During the [March 14, 2025 trial de novo, West Mifflin Police
Officer Tommy Trieu] testified that on December 19, 2024,
he was dispatched to investigate a disturbance at a bar.
J-A29022-25

[Appellant] was in the bar arguing with customers and
refused to leave. [Appellant] said he was going to shoot the
person who was across the bar. Officer Trieu told [Appellant]
to leave the bar, but [Appellant] refused to comply.
[Appellant] caused a huge scene as Officer Trieu escorted him
outside; he was constantly yelling at the patrons and Officer
Trieu. [The trial court] found that Officer Trieu’s testimony
established disorderly conduct, and since [Appellant] failed
to appear at the scheduled [trial de novo,] his summary
appeal was dismissed. [See Trial Court Order, 3/14/25, at 1
(declaring: “[Appellant] failed to appear. Appeal is dismissed
and judgment is entered on the judgment of the issuing
authority pursuant to Pa. Rules of Criminal Procedure
462(D)”)].

Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/25, at 1-3 (citations omitted).

On March 14, 2025, the trial court sentenced Appellant to pay a fine of

$100.00, plus costs. Trial Court Order, 3/14/25, at 1. Appellant filed a timely

notice of appeal. He raises two claims to this Court:

[1.] [Appellant’s] absence from the [trial de novo] was for
good cause.

[2.] The evidence does not support a conviction under 18
Pa.C.S.A. § 5503(a)(1).

Appellant’s Brief at 6-7.1

First, Appellant claims that the trial court erred when it dismissed his

summary appeal and that the trial court should have granted him “a

continuance or other relief.” See Appellant’s Brief at 7. This claim fails.

“Our standard of review from an appeal of a summary conviction heard

de novo by the trial court is limited to a determination of whether an error of

---

1 For ease of discussion, we have renumbered Appellant’s claims on appeal.

-2-
J-A29022-25

law has been committed and whether the findings of fact are supported by

competent evidence.” Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249, 251

(Pa. Super. 2002). “The adjudication of the trial court will not be disturbed

on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” Id. (quotation marks

omitted).

In relevant part, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462 provides:

(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 declares: “Paragraph (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.” Commonwealth

v. Dixon, 66 A.3d 794, 796 (Pa. Super. 2013). “In the event that good cause

is established, the defendant is entitled to a new summary trial.” Id.

Yet, as this Court has explained:

-3-
J-A29022-25

The problem that arises in these types of cases is that, for a
quite obvious reason, trial courts often dismiss the appeals
without inquiring into whether the absentee defendant had
good cause: the person who could offer cause for the
absence is the absent defendant himself. In other words,
there is no one present in the courtroom whom the trial judge
can question regarding the reasons for the absence.
Moreover, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 720(D), a defendant in a
summary appeal case is not permitted to file post-sentence
motions. The trial court cannot question an absent defendant
regarding the cause of the absence, and the defendant
cannot file post-sentence motions to explain the absence.
Consequently, [the Pennsylvania Superior] Court often must
address the necessary cause inquiry arising from
Pa.R.Crim.P. 462 in the first instance.

Dixon, 66 A.3d at 796-797.

In Dixon, this Court held that, following the dismissal of a summary

appeal under Rule 462(D), a new trial is required when: “(1) a trial court

dismisses a summary appeal without considering whether the absentee

defendant had cause to justify the absence; and (2) the absentee defendant

presents an affidavit on appeal that (assuming the assertions delineated in

the affidavit are true) presents at least a prima facie demonstration that cause

existed for the absence, rendering that absence involuntary.” Dixon, 66 A.3d

at 797.

In the case at bar, Appellant did not file an affidavit with this Court

explaining the reason he failed to appear for the March 14, 2025 trial de novo.

Nevertheless, he presented his excuse to the trial court in his concise

statement of errors complained of on appeal and the trial court concluded that

the proffered excuse did not provide “adequate cause for [Appellant’s]

absence.” See Dixon, 66 A.3d at 796. As the trial court explained:

-4-
J-A29022-25

On April 22, 2025, [Appellant] was ordered to file a [Rule]
1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.
. . . In the [Rule 1925(b) statement, Appellant stated] that
he was absent from the [March 14, 2025 trial de novo] due
to the terminal illness and death of his niece, and that [the
trial court] should have granted a continuance.

...

[Appellant’s proffered excuse] fails to provide good cause for
[his] nonappearance. . . . The record does not establish that
he contacted the [trial] court before the [trial] to request a
continuance. Additionally, his reason for the nonappearance
is too vague to provide good cause.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/25, at 2.

The trial court’s factual finding is supported by the record and was within

its discretion. See Commonwealth v. Cook, 231 A.3d 913, 919 (Pa. Super.

2020) (“an abuse of discretion occurs only where the trial court has reached

a conclusion that overrides or misapplies the law, or when the judgment

exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or is the result of partiality, prejudice,

bias or ill-will”). As such, the trial court’s factual finding is binding on this

Court. See Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d at 251 (“[o]ur standard of review from an

appeal of a summary conviction heard de novo by the trial court is limited to

a determination of whether an error of law has been committed and whether

the findings of fact are supported by competent evidence. The adjudication

of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of

discretion”) (quotation marks and citations omitted). Appellant’s claim that

the trial court should have should have granted him “a continuance or other

relief” thus fails. See Appellant’s Brief at 7.

-5-
J-A29022-25

Second, Appellant claims that the evidence was insufficient to support

his disorderly conduct conviction. See Appellant’s Brief at 6-7. However, in

this case, even though the trial court heard testimony from Officer Trieu on

March 14, 2025, the trial court dismissed Appellant’s summary appeal due to

Appellant’s failure to appear and “enter[ed] judgment . . . on the judgment of

the issuing authority.” See Trial Court Order, 3/14/25, at 1; see also

Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D).2 Further, as this Court has explained, the trial court was

within its discretion when it concluded that Appellant did not provide good

cause to justify his nonappearance at the March 14, 2025 trial de novo.

Therefore, Appellant’s second claim on appeal also fails.

---

2 Moreover, we note that the trial court found Officer Trieu credible and his

testimony was sufficient to support the conviction of disorderly conduct.
Under the applicable statute, “A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with
the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly
creating a risk thereof, he: (1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent
or tumultuous behavior…”. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(1). As found by the trial
court,

Officer Trieu…testified that…he was dispatched to investigate a
disturbance at a bar. [Appellant] was in the bar arguing with
customers and refused to leave. [Appellant] said he was going to
shoot the person who was across the bar. Officer Trieu told
[Appellant] to leave the bar, but he refused willingly to comply.
[Appellant] caused a huge scene as Officer Trieu escorted him
outside; he was constantly yelling at the patrons and Officer Trieu.

Trial Court Opinion, 5/22/25, at 3 (citations omitted). We agree that Officer
Trieu’s testimony supports the conviction of disorderly conduct. See
Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 731 (Pa. Super. 2003)
(Threatening bar patron with a gun is sufficient to convict for disorderly
conduct). See also Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 946 A.2d 93, 100-101 (Pa.
2008) (Evidence was sufficient to support disorderly conduct conviction when
defendant shouted fighting words at an individual).

-6-
J-A29022-25

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 03/17/2026

-7-