In Re: Brown, A. ( 2017 )

J-S48044-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
IN RE: ALTON BROWN
Appellant No. 1394 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered June 21, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-22-MD-0000199-2016
BEFORE: OTT, J., STABILE, J., and PLATT, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
Appellant, Alton Brown, appeals pro se from the order of June 21,
2016, dismissing his amended petition for review of his private criminal
complaint. We affirm.
We take underlying facts and procedural history in this matter from
our review of the certified record. Appellant is an inmate at SCI-Greene. In
2014, Appellant sent a private criminal complaint against numerous
employees at SCI-Greene and other Greene County officials,1 to the Office of
the Pennsylvania State Attorney General. On October 10, 2014, the
____________________________________________
*
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1
The private criminal complaint, which Appellant attached to his petition for
a review is illegible. (See Amended Petition for Review of a Private Criminal
Complaint, 4/11/16, Exhibit A, Private Criminal Complaint, at 1-5).
J-S48044-17
Attorney General’s Office informed Appellant that it did not have jurisdiction
over private criminal complaints. On February 5, 2016, rather than
forwarding the complaint to the Greene County District Attorney’s Office,
Appellant filed a petition for review of the denial of the private criminal
complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County.
On February 22, 2016, the trial court issued an order stating that it
would not entertain the petition because of certain technical errors in
Appellant’s paperwork. On April 11, 2016, Appellant filed an amended
petition for review. On April 20, 2016, the trial court directed the
Commonwealth to file a response.
On April 26, 2016, the Commonwealth filed a response to the
amended petition for review. In the response, the Commonwealth reiterated
that the Attorney General’s Office does not have jurisdiction over private
criminal complaints and “[s]hould [Appellant] wish to have his allegations
investigated, he must file the correct paperwork with [it].”
(Commonwealth’s Response to the Amended Petition for Review, 4/26/16, at
unnumbered page 3).
On June 3, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to strike the
Commonwealth’s response. On June 21, 2016, the trial court issued an
-2-
J-S48044-17
order denying the motion to strike and dismissing the amended petition for
review. The instant, timely2 appeal followed.
On September 9, 2016, the trial court directed Appellant to file a
concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P.
1925(b). On October 5, 2016, Appellant filed a motion for an extension of
time to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, to which he attached his statement.
On October 7, 2016, the trial court issued a memorandum statement,
arguing that this Court should dismiss Appellant’s appeal because of his
failure to file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). On
October 19, 2016, the trial court issued a second opinion stating that it was
unaware of the October 5, 2016 filing and tacitly granted the motion for an
extension of time by issuing a second Rule 1925(a) opinion. See id.
On appeal, Appellant raises the following questions for our review:
I. Whether [the] trial court erred in its decision that Appellant’s
concise statement of [errors] complained of on appeal is too
vague?
____________________________________________
2
In its brief, the Commonwealth argues that the appeal is untimely. (See
Commonwealth’s Brief, at 6). The trial court date-stamped the notice of
appeal as being “received” on July 12, 2016. This was well within the appeal
period. However, for reasons not readily apparent from the record, it did
not docket the notice of appeal until August 12, 2016. Moreover, “the
prisoner mailbox rule provides that a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed
filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.”
Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citation
omitted). Thus, our review demonstrates that Appellant timely filed the
notice of appeal.
-3-
J-S48044-17
II. Whether [the] tr[ial] court’s refusal to submit a meaningful
Rule 1925(a) opinion prejudices this Court’s review and
Appellant’s argument on appeal?
III. Whether [the] trial court’s behavior denied Appellant due
process, including the allowing of a non-party to argue the
opposition, and [its] refusal to address the clear and valid
issues raised in [the] concise statement?
(Appellant’s Brief, at 2) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We briefly note:
When an appeal is brought from a common pleas court’s
decision regarding the approval or disapproval of a private
criminal complaint, an appellate court is limited to ascertaining
the propriety of the trial court’s actions. Thus, our review is
limited to determining whether the trial court abused its
discretion or committed an error of law.
Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76, 80 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citation
omitted).
Here, we find that we need not address the specifics of Appellant’s
contentions because Appellant failed to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of
Criminal Procedure 506. This rendered the trial court unable to review his
petition. Rule 506, which concerns private criminal complaints provides:
(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;
-4-
J-S48044-17
(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.
In the instant matter, Appellant initially submitted the private criminal
complaint to the Office of the Pennsylvania State Attorney General. When
informed that this was not the correct agency to review it, Appellant failed to
forward it to the district attorney.3 Further, despite the response filed by the
Dauphin County District Attorney’s Office, which specifically put Appellant on
notice that he needed to submit his private criminal complaint to it prior to
filing a petition in the trial court, Appellant persisted in his noncompliance
with Rule 506.4 Because Appellant never submitted the complaint to the
____________________________________________
3
We note that this was not the first private criminal complaint filed by
Appellant. Thus, Appellant was well aware of the correct procedures. See
In Re Brown, 131 A.3d 100 (Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished
memorandum).
4
Appellant’s pro se status does not excuse him from compliance with
the Rules of Criminal Procedure. As we have stated:
[a]lthough this Court is willing to liberally construe materials
filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit
upon the appellant. 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.
Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281, 1284-85 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal
denied, 918 A.2d 747 (Pa. 2007) (citations omitted).
-5-
J-S48044-17
district attorney, there was nothing for the trial court to review. See
Cooper, supra at 80 (noting that trial court’s standard of review is
dependent upon reasons provided by district attorney for disapproval).
Thus, the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion or error of law in
dismissing Appellant’s amended petition for review. See id.Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we affirm the order of
June 21, 2016.
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 9/12/2017
-6-