summary appeal hearing in Pennsylvania

2017Dixon, 66 A.3d at 797 . -6- J-A19026-16 In Dixon, the defendant explained in an affidavit that his failure to appear at the summary appeal hearing was involuntary because he initially went to the wrong location and then, after being given numerous erroneous directions, he went home and missed the trial.

2017See Dixon, supra; Thomas, supra. Moreover, Paul’s claim that he did not receive notice of the summary appeal hearing presents a prima facie demonstration that there was a reason for his absence and that it was involuntary.

2017Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(A), (D); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 462, cmt. (“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.”). -3- J-A12024-17 This Court must remand for a new summary appeal hearing where: “(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

2017See Marizzaldi, supra; Dixon, supra. Therefore, we vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new summary appeal hearing.5 Judgment of sentence vacated.

2026To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must show that: “(1) the evidence at issue was favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory or because it impeaches; (2) the prosecution has either willfully or inadvertently suppressed the evidence; and (3) the evidence was material, causing prejudice to the defendant.” Id. at 1086 . ____________________________________________ 4 At the summary appeal hearing, Appellant stated that the Commonwealth denied his request to produce “Trooper Thomas’s body [camera video recording, and] the vehicle camera and audio [recordings from the] secti

2025See Commonwealth v. Smith, 213 A.3d 307, 309 (Pa. Super. 2019) (“[F]ailure to offer a timely and specific objection results in waiver of the claim[.]” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). - 15 - J-A11007-25 Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering the evidence presented at the summary appeal hearing.

2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Dougherty, 679 A.2d 779, 784 (Pa. Super. 1994) (stating that Dougherty’s challenge to the weight of the evidence in a summary appeal was preserved where the “trial [court] explicitly addressed … weight of the evidence at the close of [Dougherty’s] trial[,]” in the absence of post-sentence motions.”); Commonwealth v. Schooley, 2021 WL 1424244 , *5 (Pa. Super., filed Apr. 15, 2021) (holding that a weight claim was waived where following a summary appeal hearing de novo, Schooley did not address the weight of the evidence orally prior to or during sentencing) (unpublish

2014See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 33 A.3d 122 , 126 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that an appellate court cannot consider anything which is not part of the record in the case); see also Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241, 246 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating that, for purposes of appellate review, what is not of record does not exist).

2014In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact- Commonwealth v. Abed, 989 A.2d 23, 26 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800, 805-06 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

2014See Commonwealth v. Johnson, 33 A.3d 122 , 126 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2011) (stating that an appellate court cannot consider anything which is not part of the record in the case); see also Commonwealth v. Holley, 945 A.2d 241, 246 (Pa. Super. 2008) (stating that, for purposes of appellate review, what is not of record does not exist).

2014In applying the above test, we may not weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for the fact- Commonwealth v. Abed, 989 A.2d 23, 26 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 947 A.2d 800, 805-06 (Pa. Super. 2008)).

2014Commonwealth v. Glass, 50 A.3d 720, 727 (Pa. Super. 2012), appeal denied, 63 A.3d 774 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted). that the statements at the summary appeal hearing.