Coleman, S. v. SCI Albion ( 2015 )

J-S22033-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
SHERMAN COLEMAN, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
SCI-ALBION, :
:
Appellee : No. 1717 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered October 7, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-25-MD-0000025-2014
BEFORE: PANELLA, LAZARUS, and STRASSBURGER, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED APRIL 28, 2015
Sherman Coleman (Coleman) appeals pro se from the order entered
on October 7, 2014, which denied his petition for review from the denial of
his private criminal complaint. After review, we affirm.
A prior panel of this Court set forth the facts of this case.
In November 2013, Coleman filed a private criminal
complaint alleging that the Superintendent of SCI-Albion, Nancy
Giroux, committed the crime of “official oppression” in violation
of 18 Pa.C[.]S[.] § 5301, et seq., by … illegally detain[ing him]
in this State Correctional Institution in violation of the Act of
1974[.]” Specifically, Coleman claimed that because the record
officer at SCI-Albion had no copy of his sentencing order, the
state prison did not have legal authority to confine him.
Coleman’s Private Criminal Complaint, 11/27/13, at 2. After
review, the District Attorney of Erie County disapproved
Coleman’s criminal complaint for “lack of prosecutorial merit.”
On February 3, 2014, Coleman filed a petition for review,
pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, which states:
Rule 506. Approval of Private Complaints
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S22033-15
(A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement
officer, the complaint shall be submitted to an
attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall approve
or disapprove it without unreasonable delay.
(B) If the attorney for the
Commonwealth:
(1) approves the complaint, the attorney shall
indicate this decision on the complaint form and
transmit it to the issuing authority;
(2) disapproves the complaint, the
attorney shall state the reasons on the
complaint form and return it to the affiant.
Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of
common pleas for review of the decision.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 506 (emphasis added). The Commonwealth
responded to Coleman’s petition for review, stating the following
reasons for its decision to disapprove his complaint:
The Commonwealth’s denial was a policy
determination, and does not represent an abuse of
discretion, nor was it made in bad faith, the result of
fraud, or unconstitutional.
At trial, the Commonwealth would have to prove,
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1) that Ms. Giroux, as Superintendent, has
subjected [Coleman] to unlawful detention;
2) that Ms. Giroux, in so subjecting [Coleman],
did so in her capacity as Superintendent; and
3) that Ms. Giroux so detained [Coleman]
knowing said confinement was illegal.
The Commonwealth does not believe it could
successfully prosecute Ms. Giroux as it does not
believe it could prove, unanimously, beyond a
-2-
J-S22033-15
reasonable doubt, either elements (1) or (3) of the
crime of Official Oppression.
Commonwealth’s Response to Petition for Review from Denial of
Private Criminal complaint, 2/21/14, at 2 (emphasis added).
On February 24, 2014, the trial court denied Coleman’s
petition for review, reiterating that the District Attorney’s
decision was based upon lack of prosecutorial merit, as set forth
in the Commonwealth’s response, and that after the court’s
review, it was clear that the D.A. did not abuse its discretion.
In Re: S. Coleman, 106 A.3d 161 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unpublished
memorandum at 1-3) (footnote omitted).
Coleman timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court. On appeal,
Coleman contended that his continued incarceration is illegal because a
proper sentencing order does not exist as required by 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9764(a)(8).1 Thus, Coleman believed that the Department of Corrections
lacked the statutory authority to detain him.
1
Subsection 9764(a)(8) provides as follows:
(a) General rule.--Upon commitment of an inmate to the
custody of the Department of Corrections, the sheriff or
transporting official shall provide to the institution’s records
officer or duty officer…
***
(8) A copy of the sentencing order and any detainers filed
against the inmate which the county has notice.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8).
-3-
J-S22033-15
A panel of this Court concluded that “there is nothing in the record
indicating that a valid sentencing order was entered on Coleman’s criminal
case below. Without a valid sentencing order on the docket, Coleman’s
confinement at SCI-Albion could well be a violation of section 9764.” In Re:
S. Coleman, supra, at 7. Accordingly, this Court remanded the case to the
trial court to “hold a hearing to determine whether, in fact, a valid
sentencing order was docketed in Coleman’s criminal case in Allegheny
County, which would justify the district attorney’s disapproval of his criminal
complaint against the Superintendent of Erie County.” Id. at 8.
On remand, the “Erie County District Attorney submitted information
to [the trial court] further substantiating the fact that [Coleman] is lawfully
under sentence of confinement for offenses committed in Allegheny County.”
Trial Court Opinion, 10/7/2014, at 1. Attached to that opinion is a
sentencing form which shows that on September 13, 1988, Coleman was
sentenced by Judge John W. O’Brien of Allegheny County. On that date,
Coleman “was sentenced to consecutive terms of no less than ten (10) and
no more than twenty (20) years in prison for each of his three (3)
convictions.” Commonwealth v. Coleman, 570 A.2d 1086 (Pa. Super.
1989) (unpublished memorandum at n. 6). Thus, on October 7, 2014, the
trial court entered an order denying Coleman’s petition for review of his
private criminal complaint.
-4-
J-S22033-15
Coleman timely filed a notice of appeal, along with “objections” to the
trial court’s opinion and order. Petitioner’s Objections to this Court’s Opinion
and Order, 10/17/2014, at 1. The trial court issued an opinion pursuant to
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) referring this Court to the opinion and order entered on
October 7, 2014.
On appeal, Coleman contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in
denying his petition for review, as the Commonwealth still has not submitted
a “written, signed and sealed judgment of sentencing order forwarded to the
clerk of courts in which was time-stamped-dated and placed in the certified-
official-court-record, i.e., (“criminal docket entries”) is the (“ONLY”) lawful
order/document that can show that [Coleman] is lawfully detained[.]”
Coleman’s Brief at 13-14 (verbatim).
We consider Coleman’s issue mindful of our standard of review.
[W]hen the district attorney disapproves a private criminal
complaint on wholly policy considerations, or on a hybrid of legal
and policy considerations, the trial court’s standard of review of
the district attorney’s decision is abuse of discretion. This
deferential standard recognizes the limitations on judicial power
to interfere with the district attorney’s discretion in these kinds
of decisions.
The private criminal complainant has the burden to prove
the district attorney abused his discretion, and that burden is a
heavy one. In the Rule 506 petition for review, the private
criminal complainant must demonstrate the district attorney’s
decision amounted to bad faith, fraud or unconstitutionality. The
complainant must do more than merely assert the district
attorney’s decision is flawed in these regards. The complainant
must show the facts of the case lead only to the conclusion that
-5-
J-S22033-15
the district attorney’s decision was patently discriminatory,
arbitrary or pretextual, and therefore not in the public interest.
In the absence of such evidence, the trial court cannot presume
to supervise the district attorney’s exercise of prosecutorial
discretion, and should leave the district attorney’s decision
undisturbed.
Thereafter, the appellate court will review the trial court’s
decision for an abuse of discretion, in keeping with settled
principles of appellate review of discretionary matters. See
Commonwealth v. Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2004) (en
banc) (citing Commonwealth v. Jones, 826 A.2d 900, 907 (Pa.
Super. 2003) (en banc)) (stating: “An abuse of discretion is not
merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the
law is overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised is
manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice,
bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record,
discretion is abused”).
In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 215 (Pa. Super. 2005).
On appeal, Coleman cites to no authority convincing us that the
documentation produced by the Commonwealth is insufficient to prove that
Coleman is being lawfully detained. The sole basis upon which this Court
remanded the case to the trial court was because it could not find a
sentencing order in the certified record. This Court observed that “the
difficulty in finding such an order in the current record is compounded by the
fact that Coleman was sentenced in 1988 in Allegheny County and the
record before us is confined to the private criminal complaint proceedings
initiated in Erie County in November 2013.” In Re: S. Coleman, supra, at
8. Thus, the Commonwealth heeded the directions of this Court and
supplemented the Erie County private criminal complaint docket with
-6-
J-S22033-15
Coleman’s criminal docket information from the Allegheny County case,
which included a sentencing form. Accordingly, the trial court then had in its
possession a “valid sentencing order … which would justify the district
attorney’s disapproval of [Coleman’s] criminal complaint against the
Superintendent of Erie County.” Id. Thus, we conclude that Coleman is not
entitled to relief.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/28/2015
-7-