Background
Bradley Andrew Buchanan was prosecuted after a Lancaster County human-trafficking task-force sting. An undercover advertisement suggested access to an underage girl, and Buchanan exchanged messages setting a price and meeting place for sexual contact with a supposed 12-year-old. Police arrested him after he drove to the designated hotel, and a later phone search recovered the conversation and evidence that he had repeatedly searched the advertising site.
At a September 29, 2023 call of the criminal list, Buchanan rejected a plea offer after the court warned that a conviction could trigger a 25-year second-strike mandatory minimum. The court told him his case would be tried during the two-week term beginning October 9. Lancaster County’s process then required the district attorney to prioritize cases and notify defense counsel of the particular day. Counsel tried to reach Buchanan with urgent emails after learning that trial would begin October 12, but Buchanan did not respond or appear.
The trial court denied a continuance because one Commonwealth witness would be unavailable the following week and another had delayed a major medical procedure. A jury convicted Buchanan in his absence of attempted and solicited sexual offenses. He was found in California in 2025 and later acknowledged at sentencing that he had absconded to spend time with his dying father. The court imposed concurrent 25-to-50-year terms plus a consecutive 36-to-48-month term for attempted unlawful contact with a minor.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Court affirmed the convictions. President Judge Emeritus Ford Elliott explained that a defendant has an absolute right to attend trial, but may waive it through conduct. Under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 602, absence without cause at the scheduled start does not bar trial. Buchanan had personal notice of the two-week trial term, an affirmative duty to remain available, and no explanation communicated to counsel or the court. His failure to stay in contact supported an inference that he intentionally avoided trial.
The panel distinguished cases in which counsel gave the court evidence of a death in the family or a documented medical emergency. Here, Buchanan provided no contemporaneous reason, the Commonwealth opposed delay for concrete witness reasons, and the trial court had a record supporting notice and voluntary absence. Buchanan also waited until a supplemental post-sentence motion to complain that the Commonwealth had not presented more proof before trial. His later admission that he knowingly absconded confirmed the conclusion.
The court nevertheless vacated the judgment of sentence on its own initiative. A 36-to-48-month term violates 42 Pa.C.S. § 9756(b)(1), which generally prohibits a minimum exceeding one-half of the maximum. Because that consecutive term affected the overall sentencing scheme, the panel remanded. It also directed the trial court to impose the separate mandatory three-year probation period required for qualifying Tier III sexual offenses.
Key Takeaways
- Notice that trial will occur during a defined two-week term can be sufficient when local practice supplies the specific day through defense counsel.
- A defendant on bail must remain in contact with counsel and alert the court to any reason for absence.
- Before proceeding in absentia, a court should weigh notice, the explanation offered, the likelihood of return, and the practical cost of rescheduling.
- An appellate court may correct an illegal minimum-to-maximum ratio sua sponte and remand when correction disrupts the sentencing plan.
Why It Matters
The precedential ruling gives Pennsylvania criminal practitioners concrete guidance when a trial date is assigned within a term rather than fixed in the defendant’s presence. The record should show the defendant’s notice of the term, counsel’s efforts to communicate the exact date, any reason offered for nonappearance, and the consequences of delay. Those facts let the trial judge make the discretionary Rule 602 decision on an appellate record rather than assumption alone.
The sentencing correction is an equally practical warning. Even where a long mandatory minimum dominates the aggregate sentence, each additional count must independently satisfy the statutory minimum-maximum relationship, and sex-offense sentencing statutes may require a consecutive probation tail. Counsel should audit every component rather than treating a comparatively short consecutive count as immaterial.