Com. v. Donahue, S. ( 2023 )

J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
FILED MARCH 09, 2023
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN M. DONAHUE :
:
Appellant : No. 1168 MDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered April 18, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003716-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN M. DONAHUE :
:
Appellant : No. 920 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered May 23, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003716-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN M. DONAHUE :
:
Appellant : No. 1179 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered June 18, 2019
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003716-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN M. DONAHUE :
:
Appellant : No. 1582 MDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered September 16, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003716-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN M. DONAHUE :
:
Appellant : No. 589 MDA 2020
Appeal from the PCRA Order Entered March 2, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003716-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN M. DONAHUE :
:
Appellant : No. 947 MDA 2020
-2-
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
Appeal from the Order Dated July 8, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003716-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN M. DONAHUE :
:
Appellant : No. 502 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Order Entered March 30, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003716-2015
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
SEAN M. DONAHUE :
:
Appellant : No. 182 MDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered December 29, 2021
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003716-2015
BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM: FILED MARCH 09, 2023
We address together these eight appeals, taken by prolific pro se filer
Sean M. Donahue (Appellant), from orders entered between 2018 and 2021
-3-
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
at the same criminal docket in the Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas.1
On April 19, 2016, Appellant was convicted by a jury of two counts of
____________________________________________
1 Throughout this matter, Appellant has filed copious filings, each lengthy and
including hundreds of pages of attachments. The trial docket spans 93 pages.
Each of the briefs in these eight appeals, together with their exhibits, exceed
600 pages; at 920 MDA 2019 alone, the brief, with attachments, is 1,481
pages long.
Appellant has previously taken six appeals in this matter, all of which
were dismissed or quashed. See 1329 MDA 2018 (Pa. Super. Dec. 7, 2018
order) (quashing appeal from non-final April 24, 2018, trial court order
denying: motion for nominal appeal bail; request for trial & pre-trial
transcripts; request for complete records on jury; request for stay of sentence
to preserve PCRA; motion for instatement/reinstatement of state coram nobis
procedure; three motions to quash portions of PCRA; and application for
relief), appeal denied 45 MAL 2019 (Pa. Jul. 9, 2019); 1417 MDA 2018 (Pa.
Super. Dec. 7, 2018 order) (quashing appeal from same April 24, 2018, trial
court order, which had been entered on trial docket a second time), appeal
denied 47 MAL 2019 (Pa. Jul. 9, 2019); 1607 MDA 2019 (Pa. Super. Feb. 3,
2020 order) (dismissing as duplicative of appeal at 1582 MDA 2019); 946
MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Dec. 23, 2020 order) (quashing appeal from non-final
June 16, 2020, order denying motion for preliminary hearing transcripts and
exhibits); 948 MDA 2020 (Pa. Super. Dec. 23, 2020 order) (quashing appeal
from duplicate non-final June 16, 2020, order denying motion for preliminary
hearing transcripts and exhibits); 789 MDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Aug. 23, 2021
order) (quashing premature appeal where trial court had not filed an order
disposing of Appellant’s April 22, 2021, petition for writ of coram nobis).
Additionally, currently before this panel are Appellant’s four pro se
appeals relating to his terroristic threats conviction in the Luzerne County
Court of Common Pleas at trial docket CP-40-CR-0003501-2012. See 1876
MDA 2018, 1647 MDA 2019, 566 MDA 2021, 743 MDA 2022. In that
matter, Appellant sent an email message in August of 2012 to the Luzerne
County District Attorney, threatening to “essentially engage in a gun fight with
police officers[ ] if the District Attorney does not do as he desires[, and stating]
people will be killed if he does not get the actions that he demands.”
Commonwealth v. Donahue, 1949 MDA 2017 (unpub. memo. at 1-2) (Pa.
Super. Aug. 22, 2018) (direct appeal), appeal denied, 753 MAL 2018 (Pa. Apr.
23, 2019), cert. denied, 19-5808 (U.S. Oct. 15, 2019).
-4-
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
harassment,2 and on the same day received a sentence of two consecutive
terms of one year’s probation. At 1168 MDA 2018, we affirm the April 18,
2018, order denying Appellant’s “Motion for Permission to Attend Potential Job
Interview at Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry,” as we
determine that order is now moot. At the remaining dockets, 920 MDA 2019,
1179 MDA 2019, 1582 MDA 2019, 589 MDA 2020, 947 MDA 2020, 502 MDA
2021, and 182 MDA 2022, we affirm the orders denying Appellant’s multiple
petitions for writ of coram nobis and Post Conviction Relief Act3 (PCRA) relief,
on the ground he is no longer serving his sentence.4 Appellant has also filed
a total of twelve applications for relief with this Court; we deny all of them.
____________________________________________
2 18 Pa.C.S. § 2709(a)(4) (“A person commits . . . harassment when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person . . . communicates to or
about such other person any . . . threatening or obscene words [or
language[.]”).
3 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541-9546.
4 See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9542 (PCRA “shall be the sole means of obtaining
collateral relief and encompasses all other common law . . . remedies . . .
including . . . coram nobis.”); 9543(a)(1)(i) (to be eligible for PCRA relief,
petitioner must be “currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation
or parole for the crime”).
-5-
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
I. 2016 Trial & Judgment of Sentence
The underlying charges arose from Appellant’s sending, in November of
2014, four threatening email messages to approximately 50 individuals,
including employees of the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry.
A jury trial was conducted on April 19, 2016.
Generally, the nature of the communications concerned
Appellant’s grievances and perceived injustices carried out by
Commonwealth employees related to his unsuccessful
applications for employment and his preferred status as a veteran.
. . . Appellant used the following language in his communications
to the e-mail recipients — “I will pursue punishment of you”;
“[t]hat is a threat”; “You won’t have to explain to a judge how you
rectify me having spent so much money on civil court actions
instead of just buying a $200 gun and $20 box of ammunition and
killing your employees . . . “; and “I hope all of you suffer terrible
tragedies.” N.T., 4/19/16, at 22, 28, 36, 44; Commonwealth
Exhibits 1–4.
Commonwealth v. Donahue, 1469 MDA 2016 (unpub. memo. at 2) (Pa.
Super. June 5, 2017) (paragraph break added), appeal denied, 610 MAL 2017
(Pa. Jan. 30, 2018).
Appellant did not testify or present any evidence. The jury found him
guilty of two counts of harassment.5 On the same day, April 19, 2016, the
trial court sentenced Appellant to two consecutive terms of one-year
____________________________________________
5The jury was hung on a count of terroristic threats. N.T., 4/18-19/16, at
103. The Commonwealth then withdrew that charge. Id. at 104-05.
-6-
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
probation. The court also directed him to have no communication with certain
Department of Labor employees.
Appellant appealed, and this Court affirmed the judgment of sentence
on June 5, 2017. Donahue, 1469 MDA 2016. The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court denied his petition for allowance of appeal on January 30, 2018.
Since then, Appellant has filed copious petitions advancing various
grievances. The instant eight appeals are taken from orders, entered between
April 2018 and December 2021, denying relief. Appellant’s numerous appeals
have resulted in the transmittal, back and forth, of the certified record
between the trial court and this Court. This Court directed that his related
appeals be listed consecutively, and they are now before this merits panel.6
Upon informal inquiry by this panel, the trial court filed a letter,
explaining that Appellant completed serving his probation in May of 2018.7
Letter from Trial Ct., 1/30/23. The following day, Appellant filed identical
“Application[s] for Relief in Response to that Letter” at all eight appeals. He
argued his sentence should have expired on April 19, 2018, but the Dauphin
County probation office “kept [him] on probation” until May 14, 2018, and
____________________________________________
6 In December of 2021, this Court continued, at Appellant’s request, oral
argument for these appeals. See e.g. 1168 MDA 2018 (order) (Pa. Super.
Dec. 10, 2021). Appellant requested a second continuance, which this panel
denied. See 1168 MDA 2018 (order) (Pa. Super. Feb. 3, 2023).
7 In past opinions, the trial court stated specifically that Appellant completed
his probation sentence on May 14, 2018. See Trial Ct. Op., 6/17/19, at 5.
-7-
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
thus his sentence is illegal. See, e.g. Appellant’s Application for Relief in
Response to that Letter, 1168 MDA 2018, 1/31/21, at 2. In light of our
disposition, we deny all eight applications. Appellant has also filed four other
applications with this Court for relief, as discussed infra. We likewise deny
those applications.
II. PCRA Standard of Review & Eligibility for Relief
We first note: “Our standard of review of the denial of a PCRA petition
is limited to examining whether the evidence of record supports the court’s
determination and whether its decision is free of legal error.”
Commonwealth v. Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 960-61 (Pa. Super. 2019).
The PCRA “shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and
encompasses all other common law . . . remedies . . . including . . . coram
nobis.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542.
“To be eligible for [PCRA relief], the petitioner must plead and prove by
a preponderance of the evidence” they are “currently serving a sentence of
imprisonment, probation or parole for the crime[.]” 42 Pa.C.S. §
9543(a)(1)(i). Additionally,
Pennsylvania law makes clear the trial court has no jurisdiction to
consider a subsequent PCRA petition while an appeal from the
denial of the petitioner’s prior PCRA petition in the same case is
still pending on appeal. A petitioner must choose either to appeal
from the order denying his prior PCRA petition or to file a new
PCRA petition; the petitioner cannot do both, . . . because
“prevailing law requires that the subsequent petition must give
way to a pending appeal from the order denying a prior petition.”
-8-
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
If the petitioner pursues the pending appeal, then the PCRA court
is required . . . to dismiss any subsequent PCRA petitions filed
while that appeal is pending.
Beatty, 207 A.3d at 961 (citations omitted & paragraph break added).
We now address Appellant’s eight appeals seriatim.
III. 1168 MDA 2018:
April 18, 2018, Denial of Motion for Job Interview
On April 2, 2018, Appellant filed a pro se “Motion for Permission to
Attend Potential Job Interview at Pennsylvania Department of Labor and
Industry CareerLink or other Facility Owned or Controlled by That Agency.”
Appellant claimed the Department of Labor asked if he were interested in a
job as a human resources analyst.8
Although Appellant did not state a reason for seeking such permission,
the trial court pointed out his sentence included a condition that he have no
communication with certain Department of Labor employees. Trial Ct. Op.,
9/4/18, at 5. The court also noted “the contact was made by a new employee
who was unfamiliar with [Appellant’s] case[.]” Order, 4/18/18. On April 18,
2018, the court denied Appellant’s motion, finding his sentence, including the
____________________________________________
8The motion stated Appellant was filing an identical motion with the Luzerne
County trial court.
-9-
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
“no communication” order, was still in effect. Trial Ct. Op., 9/4/18, at 5.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal on May 2, 2018.9
As stated above, the trial court confirmed that Appellant completed his
sentence in May of 2018. When a defendant completes a sentence, he is no
longer subject to any direct criminal or civil consequences thereto, and thus
any challenge to the sentence is incapable of review and moot. See
Commonwealth v. Schmohl, 975 A.2d 1144, 1149 (Pa. Super. 2009);
Commonwealth v. King, 786 A.2d 993, 996-97 (Pa. Super. 2001).
Accordingly, we deem Appellant’s present appeal is moot, and we affirm the
April 18, 2018, order denying his motion for permission to attend a job
interview with the Department of Labor.10
Appellant has also filed in this Court, at this appeal docket, two nearly
identical “Application[s] for Relief,” on January 20 and 22, 2023. He requests
that certain trial exhibits be quashed, struck and expunged. On February 2nd,
he filed a “Resubmission of Appellant’s December 11, 2018 Application for
____________________________________________
9 Appellant mistakenly filed the notice of appeal with this Court, which initially
docketed it at 37 MDM 2018 and then forwarded it to the trial court. See
Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(4) (“If a notice of appeal is mistakenly filed in an appellate
court . . . the clerk shall immediately stamp it with the date of receipt and
transmit it to the clerk of the court which entered the order appealed from,
and upon payment of an additional filing fee the notice of appeal shall be
deemed filed in the trial court on the date originally filed.”).
10Furthermore, there is no indication that the same alleged 2018 job opening
remains available now, more than four years later.
- 10 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
Relief,” which: (1) averred a government agency cannot be a victim of
harassment; (2) requested this Court to recommend to the state legislature
that the “harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm” portion of the harassment statute
should also require physical contact; and (3) asserted the PCRA is overly
broad. In light of our disposition of this appeal, we deny all three petitions.
IV. 920 MDA 2019:
May 23, 2019, Order Denying Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis
For ease of discussion, we review Appellant’s ensuing filings in
chronological order. All of them were filed after he had filed the above appeal,
1168 MDA 2018, and after he completed his sentence.
Appellant first filed a pro se PCRA petition on August 15, 2018. On
December 31, 2018, the trial court appointed counsel to represent Appellant,
and subsequently appointed Shannon Sprow, Esquire, as new counsel. On
April 4th, Attorney Sprow filed a motion to withdraw from representation.11
The September 2019 denial of this PCRA petition is discussed infra, at
Superior Court docket 1582 MDA 2019.
Meanwhile, on May 21, 2019, while represented by counsel of record,
and while his first PCRA petition was still pending, Appellant filed a pro se, 33-
____________________________________________
11 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988);
Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc).
- 11 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
page petition for writ of coram nobis.12 He claimed, inter alia: (1) his “court
appointed PCRA attorney is ineffective and hasn’t done her job;” (2) there was
“[n]ewly discovered evidence regarding the previously concealed identity of
the police officer who actually collected the evidence[,]” and there was
“evidence tampering and entrapment[;]” and (3) the trial court gave “bad jury
instructions[.]” Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis, 5/21/19, at 1-3.
The trial court denied this petition two days later, on May 23, 2019,
concluding Appellant was not entitled to relief because he was no longer
serving his sentence. The court further found the jury-instruction issue was
waived because it could have been raised during trial.
We agree with both rationales and affirm the May 23, 2019, order
denying relief. Regardless of Appellant’s titling his filing as a petition for writ
of coram nobis, the claims presented were cognizable under the PCRA, and
thus “the PCRA [was] the only method of obtaining” the requested review.
See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9542 (PCRA “shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral
relief and encompasses all other common law . . . remedies . . . including . . .
coram nobis.”), 9543(a)(1)(i), (3) (to be eligible for PCRA relief, petitioner
must be “currently serving a sentence of imprisonment, probation or parole
____________________________________________
12See Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493, 494 n.1 (Pa. 2016) (“A
writ of coram nobis ‘is generally available to challenge the validity of a
judgment based on facts not before the court when the judgment was
entered.’”).
- 12 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
for the crime” and must show “the allegation of error has not been . . .
waived”), 9544(b) (issue is waived for PCRA purposes “if the petitioner could
have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review,
[or] on appeal”); Descardes, 136 A.3d at 501 (“[P]ursuant to the plain
language of Section 9542, where a claim is cognizable under the PCRA, the
PCRA is the only method of obtaining collateral review.”).
Additionally, we note that because Appellant filed the pro se petition
while he was represented by counsel of record, the denial of relief was also
proper under our long standing policy precluding hybrid representation. Our
Supreme Court has explained:
[A] defendant in a criminal case may not confuse and overburden
the courts by filing his own pro se briefs at the same time his
counsel is filing briefs for him. . . . [This] rationale . . . applies
equally to PCRA proceedings[.] We will not require courts
considering PCRA petitions to struggle through the pro se filings
of defendants when qualified counsel represent those defendants.
Commonwealth v. Pursell, 724 A.2d 293, 302 (Pa. 1999). See also
Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032, 1044 (Pa. 2011) (“[T]he proper
response to any pro se pleading is to refer the pleading to counsel, and to
take no further action on the pro se pleading unless counsel forwards a
motion.”).
V. 1179 MDA 2019:
June 17, 2019, Order Denying Supplement to Writ of Coram Nobis
On June 12, 2019 — three weeks after the denial of the above petition
for writ of coram nobis — Appellant filed a pro se, 43-page “Coram Nobis
- 13 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
Supplement to Ongoing PCRA and Separate Petition for a Writ of Coram
Nobis.” He reiterated the claims in the May 21, 2019, coram nobis filing.
The trial court denied relief on this petition on June 18, 2019. We affirm,
as we agree with the court’s rationale — Appellant had completed serving his
sentence and was thus not entitled to coram nobis or PCRA relief. See 42
Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i); Trial Ct. Op., 8/15/19. The denial of relief was also
proper because Appellant had a pending PCRA appeal at the same trial court
docket. See Beatty, 207 A.3d at 961. Finally, Appellant filed this petition
when he was represented by PCRA counsel; denial of relief was proper on this
basis as well. See Pursell, 724 A.2d at 302.
VI. 1582 MDA 2019: September 26, 2019, Order
Denying PCRA Petition
This appeal pertains to Appellant’s first PCRA petition, which was filed
on August 15, 2018. On June 17, 2019, the trial court issued Pa.R.Crim.P.
907 notice of intent to dismiss the petition, again reasoning Appellant was not
entitled to relief because he was no longer serving his sentence. Trial Ct. Op.,
6/17/19, at 5 (unpaginated). At this time, the court also granted Attorney
Sprow’s motion to withdraw as counsel. On July 5th, Appellant filed an
objection to the order permitting counsel to withdraw. On September 16,
2019, the court formally denied the PCRA petition, and Appellant appealed to
this Court.
- 14 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
Again, the trial court’s denial of relief was proper because there was a
pending appeal pertaining to a prior PCRA petition. See Beatty, 207 A.3d at
961. We also affirm the order on the ground Appellant was no longer serving
his sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i).
At this Superior Court docket, Appellant has also filed with this Court an
application for relief, entitled “Brief in Support of: Appellant’s Resubmission of
his September 9, 2020 and September 10, 2020 Applications for Relief with
Regard to the Issues that Were Deferred by the Superior Court Order of
December 29, 2021.” He avers the record is missing documents, because the
copy of the PCRA petition is not the original document that he filed. As no
relief is due for the reasons stated above, we deny this application.
VII. 589 MDA 2020: March 2, 2020 Order
Denying Motion to Correct & Expunge Trial Record
Next, on March 2, 2020, Appellant filed a pro se “Motion to Correct Court
Record at 1582 MDA 2019 & Motion to Expunge County Trial Court Record and
Magisterial Court Record Because the Record is Not Reliable.” The 1582 MDA
2019 docket pertains to the appeal taken from the September 16, 2019, order
denying Appellant’s PCRA petition, addressed in the immediately preceding
section.13 In this motion, Appellant averred his PCRA petition — “86 pages [in
length] with more than 6,000 pages of appendices” — as well as his objection
____________________________________________
13 However, in fact, all of these appeals share the same certified record.
- 15 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
to Attorney Sprow’s withdrawal, were missing from the certified record.
Appellant’s Motion to Correct Court Record at 1582 MDA 2019 & Motion to
Expunge County Trial Court Record and Magisterial Court Record Because the
Record is Not Reliable, 3/2/20, at 2, 4. Appellant claimed “someone
intentionally interfered with the trial court record to prevent [his] issues from
being raised, [this] was an act of fraud unto the court[,]” and therefore the
entire criminal case “must be expunged because the accuracy of the trial court
record . . . cannot be trusted.” Id. at 11-12.
On March 2, 2020, the trial court issued an order, directing the court
clerk to transmit the missing PCRA petition to this Court. The court also noted
Appellant’s objection to counsel’s withdrawal had already been transmitted to
this Court. The court then denied Appellant’s motion to expunge the entire
trial record. The court found, inter alia: (1) the missing filings have been
added to the certified record; and (2) Appellant presented no evidence in
support of his “broad assertion that the trial court record is unreliable.” Trial
Ct. Op., 5/28/20, at 2.
We again conclude Appellant was not entitled to relief on the March 2,
2020, motion, because he had completed serving his sentence and an appeal
from the denial of a prior PCRA petition was pending. See 42 Pa.C.S. §
9543(a)(1)(i); Beatty, 207 A.3d at 961. We thus affirm the trial court’s order.
- 16 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
VIII. 589 MDA 2020: July 8, 2020, Order
Denying Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Next, on July 2, 2020, Appellant filed a “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,”
asserting the preliminary hearing transcript and exhibits were missing from
the certified record. Appellant alleged the “magistrate [judge] obviously
removed those documents from the record[, and this action] equates to no
evidence having been presented at the pretrial phase.” Appellant’s Petition
for Writ of Certiorari, 7/2/20, at 9. Appellant reasoned the trial court should
thus expunge both the magisterial court and trial court records. Id. at 10-11.
The trial court denied this petition on July 8, 2020, reasoning Appellant’s
claim was moot, as the preliminary hearing transcripts had been transmitted
to the Superior Court. Trial Ct. Op., 9/14/20, at 2; Order, 7/8/20.
We affirm, as Appellant is not entitled to any post-conviction collateral
relief because he is no longer serving his sentence, and because he had a
pending appeal from the denial of a prior PCRA petition. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9543(a)(1)(i); Beatty, 207 A.3d at 961. Furthermore, we note that in
response to Appellant’s multiple applications for relief filed at 1582 MDA
2019,14 this Court issued an order on October 26, 2020, which stated: “The
copies of the preliminary hearing transcript and preliminary hearing exhibits
that were forwarded to this Court by the trial court have been accepted by
____________________________________________
14 We have addressed this appeal above.
- 17 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
this Court as part of the certified record.” Order, 1582 MDA 2019, 10/26/20,
at 1.
IX. 502 MDA 2021: March, 29, 2021, Order
Denying Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis/Motion for Expungement
On March 24, 2021, Appellant filed a single document entitled “I.
Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis Based on Clarification of Legislative Intent,
II. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Clarification of Legislative
Intent, III. Petition for Equitable Relief Based on Clarification of Legislative
Intent.” Appellant again claimed his conviction should be quashed, reversed,
struck, and expunged. He now claimed:
Congress clearly asserted in its intent that even when language
steels a crowd to violence, and even when that violence occurs,
as it did throughout the summer of 2020 and again on Jan[.] 6,
2021, the speech itself is protected by US Const. Amend. I.
Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis Based on Clarification of
Legislative Intent, Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Clarification of Legislative
Intent, Equitable Relief Based on Clarification of Legislative Intent, 3/24/21,
at 2.
On March 29, 2021, the trial court issued an order, declaring it lacked
jurisdiction to hear the petition because a prior appeal in this case was
currently pending. Order, 3/29/21. The court rejected Appellant’s contention
that the court in fact had jurisdiction “to correct patent and obvious mistakes,”
where the relief requested — reversal of his judgment of sentence — was not
a mere correction of a mistake. Trial Ct. Op., 7/2/21, at 1.
- 18 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
We agree with the trial court’s reasoning. See Beatty, 207 A.3d at 961.
See also Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a), (b)(1) (generally, after an appeal is taken, the
trial court may no longer proceed further in the matter, although court may
“take such action as may be necessary to preserve the status quo, correct
formal errors in papers relating to the matter, cause the record to be
transcribed, approved, filed, and transmitted, [or] take other action . . .
ancillary to the appeal”). We also affirm the order on the basis that Appellant
is not presently entitled to any post-conviction collateral relief as he is no
longer serving his sentence. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(1)(i).
In addition, we note that on direct appeal, Appellant raised a free speech
argument in challenging the sufficiency of the evidence; he claimed “that none
of the language included in the e-mails indicates a specific threat of
violence[,]” and “therefore, his conduct was protected speech under the
United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.”15 Donahue, 1469 MDA 2016
(unpub. memo. at 4-5). Appellant’s present attempt to raise a novel free
____________________________________________
15 The direct appeal panel concluded:
Appellant cannot credibly argue that his free speech rights were
in any way infringed in this matter. While Appellant is free to
express his disagreement with the Commonwealth employees
concerning his dissatisfaction with state policies, he is not
empowered to threaten the employees with reference to guns,
ammunition, and militia, veiled though they may be.
Donahue, 1469 MDA 2016 (unpub. memo. at 5).
- 19 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
speech claim is waived, as it could have been raised at trial or direct appeal.
See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9544(b).
X. 182 MDA 2022: December 29, 2021, Order
Denying Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis
On April 22, 2021, the same day Appellant filed a notice of appeal from
the denial of the last petition, he filed yet another petition with the trial court:
“I. Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis Based on Third Circuit Finding of Fact, II.
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Third Circuit Finding of Fact and
III. Petition for Equitable Relief Based on Third Circuit Finding of Fact.”
Appellant again requested his conviction and case be quashed, reversed,
struck, and expunged. He averred a threat to file a lawsuit is protected activity
under the First Amendment, and here, the Commonwealth misused the
harassment statute to prosecute a protected activity.
On June 16, 2021, Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the “deemed
denial” of his petition. This Court quashed the appeal as premature, as there
was no trial court order disposing of the petition. See 789 MDA 2021 (Pa.
Super. Aug. 23, 2021, order). Following the receipt of the record back from
this Court, the trial court issued an order on December 29, 2021, denying the
petition, again citing the fact that Appellant currently has multiple appeals
pending at the same trial docket. Appellant nevertheless appealed from that
order.
- 20 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
We affirm the trial court’s December 29, 2021 order, again on the bases
that Appellant is not entitled to post-conviction collateral relief because he is
no longer serving a sentence, his novel free speech argument is waived, and
he had an appeal pending from the denial of a prior PCRA petition. See 42
Pa.C.S. §§ 9543(a)(1)(i), 9544(b); Beatty, 207 A.3d at 961.
XI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude Appellant is not entitled to any
relief.16
At 1168 MDA 2018, we affirm the April 18, 2018, order denying
Appellant’s motion for permission to attend a job interview. We also deny
Appellant’s four applications for relief, filed January 20, 22, and 31, and
February 2, 2023.
At 920 MDA 2019, we affirm the May 23, 2019, order denying
Appellant’s petition for writ of coram nobis. We also deny Appellant’s January
31, 2023, application for relief.
____________________________________________
16 We caution Appellant to carefully consider his litigious behavior in the
future, and hereby notify him that excessively filing frivolous claims, and/or
engaging in other conduct that is abusive to our court system, may result in
sanctions and/or the filing of injunctions. We point out our Rules of Appellate
Procedure permit parties to file an application with this Court for reasonable
counsel fees in cases of frivolous appeals and obdurate, vexatious conduct.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2744, 2751, 2572; see also Commonwealth v. Wardlaw,
249 A.3d 937, 947 (Pa. 2021) (“For example, an appellate court ‘may award
as further costs damages as may be just,’ Pa.R.A.P. 2744, provided that, inter
alia, the party receiving such damages makes ‘[a]n application for further
costs and damages.’”) (citation omitted).
- 21 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
At 1179 MDA 2019, we affirm the June 17, 2019, order denying
Appellant’s supplement to petition for writ of coram nobis. We also deny
Appellant’s January 31, 2023, application for relief.
At 1582 MDA 2019, we affirm the September 26, 2019, order denying
Appellant’s PCRA petition. We also deny Appellant’s: (1) January 28, 2023,
“Brief in Support of: Resubmission of his September 9, 2020 and September
10, 2020 Applications for Relief with Regard to the Issues that Were Deferred
by the Superior Court Order of December 29, 2021;” and (2) January 31,
2023, application for relief.
At 589 MDA 2020, we affirm the March 2, 2020, order denying
Appellant’s “Motion to Correct Court Record at 1582 MDA 2019 & Motion to
Expunge County Trial Court Record and Magisterial Court Record Because the
Record is Not Reliable.” We also deny Appellant’s January 31, 2023,
application for relief.
At 589 MDA 2020, we affirm the July 8, 2020, order denying Appellant’s
petition for writ of certiorari. We also deny Appellant’s January 31, 2023,
application for relief.
At 502 MDA 2021, we affirm the March 29, 2021, order denying
Appellant’s “I. Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis Based on Clarification of
Legislative Intent, II. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Clarification
of Legislative Intent, III. Petition for Equitable Relief Based on Clarification of
- 22 -
J-A04031-23, J-A04033-23, J-A04034-23, J-A04035-23, J-A04037-23,
J-A04038-23, J-A04039-23, J-A04041-23
Legislative Intent.” We also deny Appellant’s January 31, 2023, application
for relief.
At 182 MDA 2022, we affirm the December 29, 2021, order denying
Appellant’s “I. Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis Based on Third Circuit Finding
of Fact, II. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Based on Third Circuit Finding
of Fact and III. Petition for Equitable Relief Based on Third Circuit Finding of
Fact.” We also deny Appellant’s January 31, 2023, application for relief.
Orders at all appeals affirmed. All outstanding applications for relief
denied.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 03/09/2023
- 23 -