The opinion of the court was delivered by: James R. Kelley, Senior Judge
AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 2011, it is ordered that the Opinion filed on July 28, 2011, shall be designated OPINION rather than MEMORANDUM OPINION, and that it shall be reported.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania : : v. : Antonio Geatti, : Appellant :
Submitted: April 15, 2011
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE KELLEY
Antonio Geatti (Geatti) appeals pro se from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of the Twenty-Sixth Judicial District, Columbia County branch (Trial Court) which found Geatti guilty of a summary offense for a high grass/weeds violation, and reinstated the fines and costs set therefor by a Magisterial District Justice (District Justice). We affirm.
The following facts have been gleaned from the scant record to this matter. Geatti was issued a Non-Traffic Citation, dated June 25, 2009, by a Scott Township (Township) Codes Officer, for a violation of the Township's ordinance against prohibited vegetation. Certified Record (C.R.) at Item 2. Geatti plead not guilty, and a trial was held thereafter before the District Justice at which Geatti appeared pro se. On August 17, 2009, the District Justice issued an order finding Geatti guilty and imposing upon Geatti fines and costs in the amount of $463.50. Id. at Item 1. Geatti filed a timely summary appeal to the Trial Court.
Geatti, pro se, appeared before the Trial Court, as did an Assistant District Attorney representing the Commonwealth. Following a trial de novo, the Trial Court entered an order dated March 15, 2010, finding Geatti guilty of the high grass/weeds violation, and reinstating the fines and costs as set by the District Justice.
Geatti, pro se, appealed the matter to Superior Court. Because the matter involves a municipal ordinance, Superior Court transferred the matter to this Court by order dated September 22, 2010.
This Court's standard of review when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in a conviction for a summary offense is whether, viewing all the evidence admitted at trial, together with all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the trier of fact could have found that each element of the offense charged was supported by evidence and inferences sufficient in law to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Seyler, 929 A.2d 262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Our scope of review of convictions for summary offenses is limited to determining whether constitutional rights had been violated or whether ...