Com. v. Collazo, R. ( 2015 )

J-A20030-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
RUBEN M. COLLAZO,
Appellant No. 3210 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 23, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-45-SA-0000089-2014
BEFORE: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 07, 2015
Appellant, Ruben M. Collazo, appeals pro se from the judgment of
sentence entered following a de novo summary appeal to the Court of
Common Pleas of Monroe County. We affirm.1
In December of 2010, at the Mount Airy Casino in Paradise Township,
Appellant was witnessed distributing business cards that advertised his
website. Because solicitation is not permitted at the casino, security ejected
Appellant from the property and directed him not to return. Additionally,
Mr. Trevor Tasetano, a security manager at Mount Airy, personally
____________________________________________
1
On July 22, 2015, Appellant filed a motion for continuance in this Court
that appears to be a copy of a motion for a continuance in a separate case
filed at Monroe County criminal docket number CP-45-CR-2279-2014. As
that case is not before this Court and because it has no bearing on the case
at bar, Appellant’s motion is DENIED.
J-A20030-15
telephoned Appellant and advised him that he had violated Mount Airy policy
and was now barred from the premises.
Despite this bar, on or about November 29, 2013, Mount Airy security
officers were advised by casino employees that Appellant was again on the
property. Mount Airy security then called the State Police to report a
suspected trespasser.
Appellant was charged with criminal trespass and found guilty.
Thereafter, Appellant filed a summary appeal from his conviction, and the
trial court held a de novo trial. On October 23, 2014, the trial court found
Appellant guilty of criminal trespass and imposed a fine of $300.00. This
timely appeal followed.
On November 25, 2014, the trial court directed Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). On December 15, 2014, Appellant, pro se, filed a document
entitled “Defendant’s Concise Statement.” In the concise statement,
Appellant averred that the verdict was based on unsupported allegations, the
trial court erred in applying 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 of the Pennsylvania Race Horse
Development and Gaming Act, and Mount Airy infringed on Appellant’s
freedom of religion. Concise Statement, 12/15/14, at 1-2. However, in his
pro se appellate brief, Appellant has raised only his challenge concerning the
alleged violation of 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515. Appellant’s Brief at 8-9. Therefore,
the balance of Appellant’s claims of error, which were raised in the Pa.R.A.P.
-2-
J-A20030-15
1925(b) statement, are deemed waived due to his failure to present them in
the statement of questions involved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question
will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved
or is fairly suggested thereby.”).
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the
certified record before us on appeal, and the thorough opinion of the trial
court dated January 7, 2015. While the trial court provided Appellant ample
opportunity to present his defense and challenge the Commonwealth’s case,
Appellant’s attack on 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 is both misplaced and wholly
inaccurate.2 As the trial court explained at both the summary appeal and in
its opinion, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 does not prevent Mount Airy from ejecting
individuals who disrupt the casino’s operations. It is our conclusion that the
issues presented by Appellant lack merit, and the trial court’s opinion aptly
disposes of Appellant’s claims raised on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence on the basis of the
trial court’s opinion and adopt its reasoning as our own. The parties are
directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings
in this matter.
____________________________________________
2
While this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se
litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.
Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation
omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a
legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of
expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Id.-3-
J-A20030-15
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/7/2015
-4-
Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY
FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA
I
\·
I
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: NO. 89 SA 2014
vs.
RUBEN M. COLLAZO,
Defendant : PA.R.A.P.1925(a)
OPINION PURSUANT TO PA.R.A.P.1925(a)
This matter involved a Summary Appeal, heard de novo by this Court on October
23, 2014. The Defendant, Ruben Collazo appeared prose. The Commonwealth, through the
Monroe County District Attorney's Office, presented testimony in support of a citation issued to
the Defendant under 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3503(b)(l), for criminal trespass. The alleged criminal
trespass occurred on the premises of the Mount Airy Casino and Resort (hereafter Mt. Airy
Casino) in Paradise Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania. The Defendant was found guilty
of the offense following a bench trial and has appealed the matter to the Superior Court. This
Opinion is in support of our Order entered October 23, 2014 finding the Defendant guilty of
criminal trespass and imposition of a $300 fine plus costs.
The Defendant filed a timely appeal to this Court's Order. On November 25,
2014, this Court entered an Order requiring the Defendant (Appellant on appeal) to file and serve
on the Court, his Concise Statement of Matters on Appeal. On or about December 12, 2014, this
Court was served with Defendant's Concise . Statement. The Defendant cites numerous
Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM
challenges to this Court's Order, some of which do not appear germane to the underlying charge
of criminal trespass. The Defendant also cites fourteen (14) "Additional Facts", many of which
were not testified to at the time of trial. Defendant appears to raise the following issues:
A. The verdict was based upon unsupported allegations
and hearsay;
B. That §1515 of the Pennsylvania Race Horse
Development and Gaming Act or 58 Pa. Code §50l(a) applies,
barring a finding under 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3503(1:>)(l), of criminal
trespass;
C. A constitutional challenge that Defendant was subject to
discrimination due to religion.
We have reviewed the testimony in this case and find as follows: The Defendant
was cited for criminal trespass for entering the Mt. Airy Casino premises after receiving notice
prohibiting him from being on the premises. The Defendant acknowledged receipt of the notice
not to be on Mt. Airy Casino property. The Defendant acknowledged he was on Mt. Airy Casino
property after receiving the notice prohibiting him from being on the property.
The charge of criminal trespass under 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3503(b)(l), is defined as
follows:
"(b ). Defiant trespasser.
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not
licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as
to which notice against trespass is given by:
1. actual communication to the actor."
18 Pa. C.S.A. §3503(b)(l).
The facts at time of trial were largely uncontradicted. Mt. Airy Casino is a private
resort and gaming property located in Paradise Township, Momoe County, Pennsylvania.
2
. '
Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM
(Commonwealth's Exh. 3 - citation issued to Defendant). Mr. Tasetano, employed as the
security shift manager, testified to the following. In or about December 2010, an individual was
observed handing out business cards with a website address thereon, inside the Mt. Airy Casino
I
j
building. (N.T. 5). Mr. Tasetano investigated who the website belonged to and identified the i..
i
person operating it was the Defendant, Ruben Collazo. (N.T. 5-6). Mr. Tasetano called Mr. ·
Collazo on or about December 16 or 17, 2010, to advise him that he had violated the no
solicitation policy of Mt. Airy Casino, and that he was no longer permitted on the premises.
(N.T. 6). Mr. Tasetano testified that the Defendant stated during the call that he was on a
mailing list of Mt. Airy Casino, to which Mr. Tasetano responded he would be removed from the
mailing list. (Id.). The Defendant did not dispute that he was advised in December 2010 that he
was no longer permitted on the premises. (The Defendant also attached to his Concise Statement
a letter from Mt. Airy Casino dated December 24, 2010 that he was no longer permitted on the
Mt. Airy Casino premises, although it was not includedin testimony before this Court).
On or about 11/29/13, Mr. Tasetano was advised by Mt. Airy Casino employees
that the Defendant was on the property. (N.T. 7). Based upon this information, Mr. Tasetano
approached the Defendant in the Mt. Airy Casino building and requested his identification,
because the Defendant was not to be on the property. The Defendant showed Mr. Tasetano a
driver's license with the last name of "Aviles". (N.T. 8). Mr. Tasetano had never met the
Defendant before, but called the state police to report a suspected trespasser. Mr. Tasetano ·
testified that Trooper Victor Ortalano responded to the call. Mr. Tasetano was shown a photo
line-up of eight (8) individuals, including the Defendant, and he was able to identify the
Defendant as the individual who was on the property and had produced the identification with
3
Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM
the last name "Aviles". (N.T. 9-10). Mr. Tasetano also identified the Defendant at trial as the
person he encountered on Mt. Airy Casino property on November 29, 2013. (Id.)
Trooper Ortalano also testified at time of trial. He was a Pennsylvania State
Trooper appointed to a post at Mt. Airy Casino through the gaming commission.1 Trooper
Ortalano testified to the following. He was called to investigate an alleged criminal trespass by
the Defendant on November 29, 2013. (N.T. 17). Trooper Ortalano's investigation found that
the Defendant was using the name "Aviles" and had a player's club card with the name "Aviles"
on it; that the Defendant was not allowed on the property; that a photo array of the Defendant
shown to Mr. Tasetano and one other Mt. Airy Casino employee provided a positive
identification of the Defendant on the property; and that surveillance video from Mt. Airy
Casino, viewed by Trooper Ortalano, showed the Defendant on the property on November 29,
2013. (N.T. 18-20). Trooper Ortalano cited the Defendant in March 2014 with Criminal
Trespass. (N.T. 23). We found the testimony of Mr. Tasetano and Trooper Ortalano to be
credible.
The Defendant testified in this matter as well. He stated he had a website for
problem gambling; that he was banned from Mt. Airy Casino for handing out cards for his ·
website on Mt. Airy Casino property (although he denied doing so); that the ban was because the
Vice President of Operations for Mt. Airy Casino, Mr. Magda, did not like the content of the
website; and that he should not have been banned from the property in 2010. (N.T. 30-36). The
Defendant further testified that he was informed he had been evicted from the premises due to an
incident on December 17, 2010 (N.T. 37) and that he was on the property on November 29,
2013. (N.T. 37).
I
Trooper Ortalano served in the Pennsylvania State Police until retiring in 2014. (NT 17).
4
Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM
The crime of defiant trespass merely requires that a person enter a place with I
knowledge of a lack of license or privilege to do so. Commonwealth v. Davis, 17 A.3d 390 (Pa. I[
Super. 2011). Here, the Commonwealth witnesses and the Defendant all testified the Defendant [
Il. ..
was banned from being on the premises in 2010, that the Defendant had actual notice of such,
and that the Defendant was present on the premises on November 29, 2013. The Defendant also
used a false identification on November 29, 2013, as further evidence that he knew he was not to
be on the property. The Defendant argues he was not present at Mt. Airy Casino. on December
17, 2010, and therefore, should not have been banned due to the alleged incident. However, we
find Mr. Tasetano's testimony credible that the Defendant was the individual handing out
business cards on the premises. There was no restriction placed on the length of time between
when the Defendant was banned, and when he returned to the property. Mt. Airy Casino had the
right to ban or prohibit people from the premises. The only issue is whether or not the Defendant
was banned and informed of the ban, and ifhe returned to the premises thereafter. All of the
testimony indicated the Defendant was banned, had notice, and that he returned to the premises,
Therefore, the facts supported the finding that the Defendant was guilty under 18 Pa. C.S.A.
§3 503(b )(1 ), criminal trespass.
The Defendant's Concise Statement raises an issue under § 1515 of the
Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, 4 Pa. C.S.A. § 1101 et seq. The section
cited deals with repeat offenders excludable from licensed gaming facilities. (Mt. Airy Casino is
a licensed gaming facility). However, § 1515 in no way limits or prohibits the citation that was
issued to the Defendant. In fact, § 1515, in addition to allowing a licensed facility to exclude or
eject any person known to have been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony committed at any
licensed facility, also allows facilities to exercise the common law right to exclude or eject
5
Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM
permanently, any person disrupting operations. The Defendant's reliance on this section to.argue
there must be repeated offenses in order to exclude him from the property is misplaced.
The Defendant next contends that because each gaming facility has an obligation
to develop procedures to identify and provide information to compulsive and problem gambling
behavior under 58 Pa. Code §50l(a), he should have been allowed to promote his website.
Again, Defendant's reliance on those regulations is misplaced. The Defendant apparently
believes that an obligation of a licensee to have policies and procedures in place to handle
problem gambling or addictive behavior, gives a private individual free reign to distribute
materials on the subject at a licensed facility. That is not what the regulations provide. Neither
the Pennsylvania Code, nor any statute, requires Mt. Airy Casino to allow the Defendant to hand
out literature, even if it is related to compulsive gambling problems. The Defendant
misinterprets the language of the portion of the Code he cited.
The Defendant also argues that the action taken by Mt. Airy Casino violates his
constitutional right to freedom of religion since he states his website promotes faith-based
treatment for compulsive gamblers. However, a look at the facts of this case shows that the
Defendant was not ejected or excluded due to his religious beliefs. Rather, he was excluded
because he was identified as handing out literature on privately owned property in violation of an
anti-solicitation policy. The Defendant then violated this ban and was on the property again,
which constitutes criminal trespass.
We also note that the above matters cited by the Defendant on appeal also take
issue with the reason for his exclusion from the Mt. Airy Casino. They do not provide a defense
to the fact that he was banned from the premises, received notice of such, and still chose to return
to the premises. The charge of criminal trespass does not require review of why a Defendant is
6
Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM
prohibited from being on the property. Regardless of the reason for the ejectrnent and ban from
the premises, he committed the crime of defiant trespass by returning to the property after
receiving notice not to do so.
The Defendant also sets forth fourteen (14) paragraphs of "facts" in his Concise
Statement, many of which were not introduced into this case as testimony. We found the
witnesses and testimony for the Commonwealth credible. We found the Defendant credible as to
his admission that he had been banned from the property, that he received notice that he was
banned from the property, and that he re-entered the property on November 29, 2013. As such,
the Defendant was guilty of criminal trespass under 18 Pa. C.S.A. §3503 (b)(l).
DATED: January7, 2015
cc: District Attorney
Ruben M. Collazo, pro se
7