Com. v. Edmundson, J. ( 2019 )

J-S05032-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL : PENNSYLVANIA
PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, :
:
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
JACK O. EDMUNDSON JR., $18,732.02 :
US CURRENCY AND ASSORTED ITEMS :
OF PERSONAL PROPERTY :
:
Appellant : No. 1100 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered July 10, 2018
in the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-32-MD-0000698-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., NICHOLS, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J. FILED APRIL 25, 2019
Jack O. Edmundson, Jr. appeals from the order granting the petition
for forfeiture and condemnation filed by the Office of the Pennsylvania
Attorney General (OAG) on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Because this action involves a civil action commenced by the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, we transfer this appeal to the Commonwealth Court.
In 2014, Edmundson was charged with various crimes for his
participation “in an illegal ‘brown bag lottery.’” 1 Trial Court Opinion,
1
The trial court described this illegal scheme as follows:
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S05032-19
9/10/2018, at 2. Based upon the police’s continuing investigation into
Edmundson and the role he played in the illegal lottery, the Pennsylvania
State Police seized various assets belonging to Edmundson. Id. On
December 28, 2015, the OAG filed a petition for forfeiture and
condemnation. In response, Edmundson pro se filed a “Petition to Return
Property.” See Petition to Return Property, 8/11/2017.2 Eventually, three
hearings were held, and on July 10, 2018, the trial court entered an order
granting the Commonwealth’s petition and denying Edmundson’s petition.
Edmundson timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court, and raises several
issues regarding the forfeiture proceedings and the trial court’s findings.
We first consider the propriety of this Court exercising jurisdiction over
this appeal, an issue not raised by either party. This Court has “exclusive
(Footnote Continued) _______________________
[Lottery] tickets would be printed for fictitious fundraisers and
sold to individuals. If a person is holding a winning ticket, they
would sign the ticket, write their name and address on the ticket
and return it to the person they purchased it from. That person
would then obtain the money and pay the winner. Usually the
winner would pay a part of the proceeds back to the seller of the
ticket as a tip. The winnings would be paid in cash and delivered
in a brown bag.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/10/2018, at 3.
2
Edmundson was represented by counsel when he filed his petition pro se.
Generally, such hybrid representation is not allowed, and pro se filings by
represented parties are considered legal nullities. See, e.g.,
Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d 282, 293 (Pa. 2010) (holding pro se
1925(b) statement filed by an appellant who was represented by counsel on
appeal was a legal nullity). However, in light of our disposition, we need not
address this further.
-2-
J-S05032-19
appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from final orders of the courts of common
pleas, regardless of the nature of the controversy or the amount involved,
except such classes of appeals as are by any provision of this chapter within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the Commonwealth
Court.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 742.
“[A]ppeals from decisions in forfeiture actions fall under
the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 762 (vesting jurisdiction in the Commonwealth Court in
appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas in civil
actions commenced by the Commonwealth government); see
also Sugalski v. Cochran, [529 A.2d 1104, 1107 (Pa. Super.
1987)] (“[f]orfeiture proceedings have been held to be civil in
rem proceedings, which are quasi criminal in nature”);
Commonwealth v. McDermond, [560 A.2d 901, 903 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1989)] (in proceedings for forfeiture, the
Commonwealth is the plaintiff; therefore, jurisdiction to consider
the forfeiture of gambling proceeds lies with the Commonwealth
Court).
Commonwealth v. Smith, 722 A.2d 167, 169 (Pa. Super. 1998).
“Although the Commonwealth’s right to confiscate property stems from
criminal activity, the forfeiture proceeding itself is essentially a civil action, in
the nature of an in rem proceeding. As such, th[e Commonwealth Court] has
jurisdiction under [] 42 Pa.C.S. § 762.” Strand v. Chester Police Dep't,
687 A.2d 872, 873 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 1997).
Accordingly, the Commonwealth Court has exclusive jurisdiction over
this appeal. However, Pa.R.A.P. 741(a) “allows this Court to accept
jurisdiction of an appeal that belongs in another appellate court when the
parties do not object.” Gordon v. Philadelphia Cty. Democratic Exec.
-3-
J-S05032-19
Comm., 80 A.3d 464, 474 (Pa. Super. 2013) (retaining jurisdiction over
appeal argued before this Court where appellees did not object and issues
exclusive to Commonwealth Court were tangential to the decision).
“Nevertheless, this Court may, sua sponte, raise the issue of whether an
appeal should be transferred to the Commonwealth Court.” Smith v. Ivy
Lee Real Estate, LLC, 152 A.3d 1062, 1065 (Pa. Super. 2016).
In determining whether to retain jurisdiction or transfer an
appeal, we balance the interests of the parties and matters of
judicial economy against other factors, including: (1) whether
the case has already been transferred; (2) whether retaining
jurisdiction will disrupt the legislatively ordained division of labor
between the intermediate appellate courts; and (3) whether
there is a possibility of establishing two conflicting lines of
authority on a particular subject. We examine each potential
transfer on a case-by-case basis.
Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
While the parties’ interest in speedy resolution of the appeal weighs in
favor of our retaining it, we conclude that that such interest is outweighed in
the instant case by the other relevant considerations. The instant case has
not been transferred previously. Judicial economy is not much impacted, as
this Court has not expended resources in entertaining argument on its
merits. Finally, resolution of this appeal requires interpretation and
application of law with which the Commonwealth Court has expertise that
this Court lacks, and for which a uniform body of case law is important. See
Newman v. Thorn, 518 A.2d 1231, 1235 n.3 (“We have not hesitated to
transfer cases in deference to our sister court’s expertise.”).
-4-
J-S05032-19
Accordingly, we transfer this appeal to the Commonwealth Court for
disposition on the merits.
Appeal transferred.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/25/2019
-5-