contention that a default based upon a failure to comply with the statutory procedure for appealing a conviction to the superior court for a de novo jury trial violates the Massachusetts Constitution: [The statute] gives any person convicted before a justice of the peace or police court the right to appeal to the superior court and to have a trial by jury, and makes regulations which are reason able and necessary as to the mode in which he may enter and prosecute his appeal. If he neglects so to enter and prosecute his appeal, he waives his right of a trial by jury, and the provision ... that he may thereupon be defaulted and sentenced, is not unconstitutional. Commonwealth v. Whitney, 108 Mass. 5, 6-7 (1871) (citation omitted); see Com. v. Francis, 374 N.E.2d 1207, 1212 (Mass. 1978) (<HOLDING>). Also informing the court’s decision in
holding that appellant was entitled to a de novo review however he was not entitled to a de novo review of an argument never raised holding that the proper review for the trial courts application of the law is de novo holding that imposition of more severe sentence following trial de novo does violate defendants due process rights recognizing de novo standard of review holding following whitney that defendant was deemed to have waived right to a de novo jury trial where failure to appear at de novo trial was due to his own neglect in not informing the clerks office of his change of address