Com. v. Cunningham, S. ( 2014 )

J-S41021-13
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
SURREAL CUNNINGHAM,
Appellant No. 2097 EDA 2012
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 21, 2012
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011639-2011
BEFORE: BENDER, J., BOWES, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, J. FILED DECEMBER 31, 2014
Appellant, Surreal Cunningham, appeals from his sentence of 5 – 10
years’ incarceration following his conviction for possession with intent to
deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia. For the following reasons, we
dismiss his appeal without prejudice, and remand this case to the trial court.
On September 26, 2013, this Court vacated Appellant’s judgment of
sentence, and remanded to the trial court for an after-discovered evidence
hearing, in light of the fact that several newspaper articles indicated that
police officers involved in securing Appellant’s conviction had been involved
in significant corruption in similar but unrelated criminal cases, including the
use of excessive force, false arrests, and the filing of fraudulent police
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S41021-13
reports. The Commonwealth sought review of our decision with our
Supreme Court and, on August 26, 2014, our Supreme Court issued a per
curiam order vacating our decision and remanding to this Court for
reconsideration in light of Commonwealth v. Castro, 93 A.3d 818 (Pa.
2014) (holding that a newspaper article, alone, alleging police misconduct in
other cases, was insufficient to support a motion for a new trial in absence of
a description of the evidence that would be presented at an after-discovered
evidence hearing).
Subsequently, on September 18, 2014, Appellant filed a “Petition to
Remand Case to Court of Common Pleas” (Appellant’s Petition). Therein,
Appellant averred that additional evidence of corruption had emerged since
our initial decision, particularly that the police officers involved in his case
had been indicted in relation to the allegations that initially appeared in the
newspaper articles. As such, Appellant specifically requested in his petition
that we remand and relinquish jurisdiction in order to permit further action
by the trial court in light of these new revelations.
Consequently, on October 8, 2014, this Court issued an order directing
the Commonwealth to file a response to Appellant’s Petition, and the
Commonwealth subsequently filed its response on November 19, 2014.
Therein, the Commonwealth indicated that it “has no opposition to
[Appellant’s] petition for remand.” Commonwealth’s Statement of No
Objection to Appellant’s Remand Request, 11/19/14, at 1 ¶ 3.
-2-
J-S41021-13
Accordingly, we hereby dismiss the instant appeal without prejudice,
and remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
for further proceedings.
Appeal dismissed, case remanded, jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/31/2014
-3-