Com. v. Heisey, D. ( 2015 )

J-A31023-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DANIEL L. HEISEY
Appellant No. 859 MDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered April 22, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-36-MD-0000268-2014
BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT, J., and STABILE, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED MARCH 04, 2015
Daniel L. Heisey appeals from the order entered on April 22, 2014, in
the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, dismissing his petition for
summary appeal nunc pro tunc. Heisey raises eight issues in this timely
appeal. Seven of these issues address alleged errors in failing to hold an
evidentiary hearing on his petition for re-argument;1 the eighth issue is a
claim the trial court misinterpreted an averment in Heisey’s original petition
for nunc pro tunc relief. After a thorough review of the submissions by the
parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm.
____________________________________________
1
The petition for re-argument was denied without a hearing by order of May
1, 2014. The denial of the petition for re-argument is included in this
appeal.
J-A31023-14
We recite the procedural and factual background of this matter as
related by the trial court in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion:
Defendant Daniel Heisey has appealed to the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania from the order dismissing his petition to appeal
nunc pro tunc entered on April 21, 2014 and the order
dismissing his motion for reconsideration entered on May 1,
2014. On appeal [Heisey] alleges 28 errors[2] by the Court,
based on the Court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing
in light of the lack of assertions by [Heisey] that would merit a
hearing. This opinion is written pursuant to Rule 1925(a) of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
On January 13, 2014, [Heisey] was found guilty at a summary
trial before Magisterial District Judge Mary Mongiovi Sponaugle
for citations received on October 31, 2013 for operating a vehicle
without an official certificate of inspection1 and operating a
vehicle while registration is suspended.2 [Heisey] was not
present at the time of the summary trial. Notice of the summary
trial had been sent to 271 Prospect Road, Mount Joy, PA 17552,
which was the address provided by [Heisey] as his place of
business, although not the address on his license. [Heisey’s]
summary convictions following the trial were sent to 606 Queen
Street, York, PA, 17403, which was the address on [Heisey’s]
Driver’s License at the time of the summary trial. On March 28,
2014, [Heisey] filed a Petition for Leave to File Appeal Nunc Pro
Tunc. In his petition, he argued that although notice of the
hearing had been sent to the address he had provided, he had
not been advised by anyone at that address of the notice date of
the hearing. He also argued that he did not receive notice of the
verdict against him until March 18, 2014 when his license was
seized as he attempted to change his address on his driver’s
license.
1
75 Pa.C.S. § 4703.
2
75 Pa.C.S. § 1371.
____________________________________________
2
We note the Commonwealth’s argument that Heisey’s Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
statement is redundant but neither concise nor coherent. See
Commonwealth’s Brief at 6-7, Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(iv).
-2-
J-A31023-14
His petition was denied without a hearing, as he failed to allege
evidence of fraud, or a wrongful or negligent act of court official
which caused [Heisey] to forgo his right to a timely appeal of
conviction. In [Heisey’s] motion for reconsideration, he argued
that notice of the hearing had never actually been sent to the
address he had provided and that the inability of the
Commonwealth to prove actual receipt of Notice of the Hearing
constitutes a breakdown in the system. The court denied his
motion. The instant appeal followed.
Trial Court Opinion, 6/23/2014, at 1-2.
Initially, we note:
An abuse of discretion standard governs our review of the
propriety of a grant or denial of an appeal nunc pro tunc. Union
Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment, 560 Pa.
481, 746 A.2d 581 (2000). An appeal nunc pro tunc is intended
to be an extraordinary remedy to vindicate the right to an appeal
where that right has been lost due to some extraordinary
circumstance. See Commonwealth v. Stock, 545 Pa. 13, 679
A.2d 760 (1996). Thus, the pertinent question in this review is
whether the right to appeal from his summary convictions was
denied Appellant by extraordinary circumstances not of his doing
so as to merit the remedy of an appeal nunc pro tunc. Id.Commonwealth v. White, 806 A.2d 45, 46 (Pa. Super. 2002).
Additionally, as the trial court noted, “Only where there are
circumstances such as ineffectiveness of counsel, fraud, or a breakdown in
the court’s operations is an appeal nunc pro tunc justified.”
Commonwealth v. Frazier, 471 A.2d 866, 868 (Pa. Super. 1984).
Because Heisey’s allegations regarding the failure to grant a hearing
on the petition for re-argument all center on the purported failures of the
court to notify him of his hearing date and/or conviction, we will address
-3-
J-A31023-14
Heisey’s underlying allegation that the trial court misinterpreted an
averment in his petition for leave to file appeal nunc pro tunc.
The claim of misinterpretation involves a question of whether he
admitted in his original petition that the notice of hearing was sent to his
work address, received there, but his employees never informed him of that
notice. If Heisey admitted the notice of hearing had been sent and received,
but that he simply was unaware of that, then there would be no
extraordinary circumstance as to merit nunc pro tunc relief. Accordingly, we
examine the averments in Heisey’s original petition.
3. The Notice of Hearing was sent to [Heisey] by regular mail to
271 Prospect Road, Mount Joy, PA 17552 on December 24,
2013, the address [Heisey] had provided although not the
address on his License.
4. During that time the [Heisey] was very busy driving an oil
delivery truck for his oil company.
5. The address is that of his place of business.
6. The Petitioner was not advised by his employees of the notice
date of the hearing and did not attend. The Hearing was
held in his absence on January 13, 2014 and he was found
guilty on both charges. The Decisions are attached, marked
Exhibit “B” and made part of hereof. They were sent to 606
S. Queen St., York, PA 17403 and [Heisey] represents he did
not receive copies in the mail.
Petition to Appeal Nunc Pro-Tunc, 3/28/2014, at 1-2.
In relation to the above averments, the trial court stated:
On December 24, 2013, Notice of the Hearing was sent to
[Heisey] by regular mail to that [Mount Joy] address. [Heisey]
alleges that he was not advised by his employees of the notice
date and so did not attend.
-4-
J-A31023-14
Trial Court Opinion, at 3. We fail to see the misinterpretation by the trial
court. The original petition contains no allegations that: the notice was
never sent, the notice was never received, any fraudulent activity took
place, and/or any other form of trial court breakdown or misadventure took
place. The fair reading of Heisey’s original petition is that the trial court sent
him the notice of hearing to the address he gave the police officer at the
time the citation was issued. However, he was very busy at work and none
of his employees ever told him the notice had arrived or informed him of the
date.
Because Heisey raised no allegations of extraordinary circumstances,
the trial court’s original denial of the petition for leave to appeal nunc pro
tunc is supported by the certified record and represents no abuse of
discretion.
All of Heisey’s subsequent allegations are based upon the premise that
he did not admit the notice had been sent and that his employees had
simply failed to inform him of the date. As that premise is demonstrably
faulty, the remaining issues raised by Heisey are without merit. The trial
court is under no obligation to hold a hearing on a demonstrably meritless
claim. Accordingly, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in
denying either the original petition or the petition for reconsideration.
Order affirmed. Motion to Correct the Record granted.
-5-
J-A31023-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/4/2015
-6-