Com. v. Ghaleb, V. ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • J-S63019-19
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    :        PENNSYLVANIA
    :
    v.                             :
    :
    :
    VIVIANE GHALEB                             :
    :
    Appellant               :   No. 1072 EDA 2019
    Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 20, 2019
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division
    at No(s): CP-48-SA-0000355-2018
    BEFORE:      GANTMAN, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY MURRAY, J.:                       FILED DECEMBER 19, 2019
    Viviane Ghaleb (Appellant) appeals pro se after the trial court found her
    guilty of violating Section 435-8(E) of the City of Easton Code, which prohibits
    occupancy of a structure “condemned and placarded by” a property
    maintenance officer.        See Easton Code, § 435-8(E).1      Because we lack
    jurisdiction, we are constrained to transfer this appeal to the Commonwealth
    Court of Pennsylvania.
    Although neither party has challenged our jurisdiction, we may
    determine whether we have jurisdiction sua sponte.        See, e.g., M. London,
    Inc. v. Fedders Corp., 
    452 A.2d 236
    , 237 (Pa. Super. 1982). “Jurisdiction
    ____________________________________________
    *   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
    1City of Easton, Article I Property Maintenance, https://www.ecode360.com/
    31652697.
    J-S63019-19
    is purely a question of law; the appellate standard of review is de novo and
    the scope of review plenary.”     Commonwealth v. Seiders, 
    11 A.3d 495
    ,
    496–97 (Pa. Super. 2010).
    Here, Appellant claims this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 42
    Pa.C.S.A. § 741 (Original Jurisdiction). See Appellant’s Brief at 1 (Statement
    of Jurisdiction).   Appellant is incorrect; this Court does not have original
    jurisdiction. The provision Appellant cites reads:
    The Superior Court shall have no original jurisdiction, except in
    cases of mandamus and prohibition to courts of inferior
    jurisdiction where such relief is ancillary to matters within its
    appellate jurisdiction, and except that it, or any judge thereof,
    shall have full power and authority when and as often as there
    may be occasion, to issue writs of habeas corpus under like
    conditions returnable to the said court.
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 741.
    Section 741 is not applicable.     To the contrary, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762
    states:
    (a)   General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
    Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of
    appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas in the
    following cases:
    ***
    (4) Local government civil and criminal matters.--
    42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(4) (emphasis added).
    Furthermore, Section 742 dictates that the “Superior Court shall have
    exclusive appellate jurisdiction of all appeals from final orders of the courts of
    -2-
    J-S63019-19
    common pleas except” those “within the exclusive jurisdiction of the . .
    . Commonwealth Court.”            42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742 (emphasis added).         The
    Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has “exclusive jurisdiction of appeals
    from final orders of the courts of common pleas . . . where is drawn in question
    the application, interpretation or enforcement of any . . . statute regulating
    the affairs of [a] municipality.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 762(a)(4)(i)(A).
    We note that while we could assert jurisdiction pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A.
    § 704 (Waiver of objections to jurisdiction), we decline to do so, because this
    appeal has not “already been transferred”; transfer could potentially “disrupt
    the legislatively ordained division of labor between the intermediate appellate
    courts”; and there exists the “possibility of establishing two conflicting lines of
    authority.” Trumbell Corp. v. Boss Construction, Inc., 
    747 A.2d 395
    , 399
    (Pa. Super. 2000).
    Finally, Appellant will not be prejudiced by transfer. Pennsylvania Rule
    of Appellate Procedure 751 provides that we “transfer the record to the proper
    court    . . .   where the appeal . . . shall be treated as if originally filed in
    transferee court on the date first filed . . .” Pa.R.A.P. 751(a).
    For the above reasons, it is ORDERED that this appeal is transferred to
    the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
    -3-
    J-S63019-19
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 12/19/19
    -4-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1072 EDA 2019

Filed Date: 12/19/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024