J-A12023-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

v. GENE C. BENCKINI Appellant No. 1827 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 14, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-39-SA-0000032-2015

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J. and STEVENS, P.J.E.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED SEPTEMBER 20, 2016 Gene C. Benckini received five summary citations for violations of the Dog Law. He failed to appear for his summary trial before the magisterial district justice. The magisterial district justice convicted him in absentia.

Benckini appealed to the court of common pleas. He continued his first de novo trial. He later contacted the assistant district attorney assigned to the case and indicated he was going to seek another continuance. He writes in his brief that the assistant district attorney warned him to “make sure” he filed a “continuance form.” Appellant’s Brief, at 3 (unpaginated). 1 He did not. ____________________________________________

 Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

The argument section of Benckini’s brief consists of just two paragraphs.

See Appellant’s Brief, at 5 (unpaginated). In it, he focuses exclusively on alleged machinations involving a hit and run homicide case from September (Footnote Continued Next Page) J-A12023-16

And he failed to appear for the de novo trial. The trial court dismissed the appeal.

It is undisputed that Benckini had notice of the de novo trial or of his knowledge that he needed to request, in writing, a continuance. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 106. When he failed to appear the trial court acted entirely within its discretion to dismiss the summary appeal. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 454(F)(2)(b) (“[T]he defendant must appear for the de novo trial or the appeal may be dismissed[.]”)

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 9/20/2016

_______________________ (Footnote Continued) 1999. These allegations have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying matter here—his five summary citations and the dismissal of his appeal.

-2-