Com. v. Olick, T. ( 2016 )

J. S55024/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
THOMAS W. OLICK :
:
Appellant : No. 367 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order January 22, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-SA-0000311-2015
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 04, 2016
Appellant, Thomas W. Olick, appeals pro se from the Order entered in
the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas on January 22, 2016,
denying his “Motion in Opposition to the Piling on of Fees.” We quash.
On November 5, 2015, Magisterial District Judge Grifo convicted
Appellant of one count of Harassment1 and sentenced Appellant to pay $354
in costs and fines. On November 12, 2015, Appellant filed, in the Court of
Common Pleas of Northampton County, a Notice of Appeal from Summary
Criminal Conviction and a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The trial
court granted Appellant’s In Forma Pauperis Petition that day.
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
18 Pa.C.S. 2709(a)(1).
J. S55024/16
On December 30, 2015, the trial court entered an order indicating that
it received a Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal,2 and ordering that the appeal is
withdrawn. On January 4, 2016, the trial court entered another order
reiterating that the Appellant had withdrawn the appeal and that the
sentence issued by the Magisterial District Judge remains in full force and
effect.
On January 5, 2016, notwithstanding that Appellant had withdrawn his
appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, he filed a “Motion and Brief in
Opposition to the Piling on of Fees.” The trial court held a hearing on
Appellant’s Motion on January 15, 2016, and on January 22, 2016, it denied
Appellant’s Motion. In its January 22, 2016 Order, the trial court stated
that, “[Appellant] is required to pay the amount of $384.003 as a result of
his summary conviction [ ], and the subsequent appeal and withdrawal of
the summary appeal [ ]. [Appellant] shall comply with the payment
agreement, requiring payments of $25.00 per month, which [Appellant]
executed on December 28, 2015.” Trial Ct. Order, 1/22/16. This appeal
followed.
2
Appellant’s Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal does not appear on the trial
court docket.
3
This amount is $30 more than Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence. The
Commonwealth explained that there is a “$30 difference between the
magistrate fees and the actual costs [the Court of Common Pleas]
assessed[,] . . . even though [Appellant withdrew] the appeal.” N.T.,
1/15/16, at 5-7.
-2-
J. S55024/16
As a prefatory matter, we consider whether we have jurisdiction over
this appeal, and conclude we do not. Appellant filed his “Motion and Brief in
Opposition to the Piling on of Fees” after he withdrew his appeal to the Court
of Common Pleas. By withdrawing his appeal, Appellant divested the Court
of Common Pleas of jurisdiction to adjudicate matters arising from his
summary conviction, including the financial aspect of his Judgment of
Sentence. Accordingly, the trial court was without the authority to consider
Appellant’s Motion, and the order entered on January 22, 2016, is a nullity.
See Bancorp Group, Inc. v. Pirgos, Inc., 744 A.2d 791, 792 (Pa. Super.
2000) (stating action taken by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity).
Because the Court of Common Pleas lacked the authority to enter the
January 22, 2016 Order, rendering it a legal nullity, there is no order on the
docket from which Appellant could appeal to this Court. See
Commonwealth v. Garcia, 43 A.3d 470, 478 (Pa. 2012); 42 Pa.C.S. § 742.
We, therefore, quash this appeal. See Garcia, 43 A.3d at 478.
Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/4/2016
-3-
J. S55024/16
-4-