Com. v. Spuglio, E. ( 2020 )

J-S74008-19
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
EUGENE SPUGLIO :
:
Appellant : No. 2572 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 19, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-23-SA-0001428-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2020
Appellant, Eugene Spuglio, appeals pro se from the June 19, 2019
judgment of sentence of $600 in fines, and costs of prosecution, imposed after
he was convicted of violating two local ordinances in Ridley Township,
Pennsylvania. After review, we conclude that this case falls within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. Therefore, we transfer this
appeal to that Court.
We need not set forth the facts of this case, nor provide a detailed
procedural history. We only note that on June 19, 2019, Appellant was found
guilty, following a non-jury trial, of violating two local housing ordinances
pertaining to the inspection and operation of rooming units, or ‘boarding
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S74008-19
houses.’ That same day, the court sentenced Appellant to pay a $300 fine for
each violation, and the costs of prosecution.
On July 10, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal with the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On August 12, 2019, the Supreme Court issued
an order transferring his appeal to this Court. In Appellant’s pro se brief, he
states the following four issues for our review:
[I.] Whether the State of Pennsylvania is sovereign over Ridley
Township.
[II.] Whether Act of Jun. 3, 1915, P.L. 954, No. 420 or amended
governs rooming houses.
[III.] Whether Pa. Code 20.1 regulates rooming houses.
[IV.] Whether Ridley Township ordinances governing rooming
houses are valid.
Appellant’s Brief at 2.
Before we consider Appellant’s issues, we must determine whether his
case should be transferred to the Commonwealth Court under 42 Pa.C.S. §
762. That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
§ 762. Appeals from courts of common pleas
(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.--
(i) All actions or proceedings arising under any
municipality, institution district, public school,
planning or zoning code or under which a
-2-
J-S74008-19
municipality or other political subdivision or
municipality authority may be formed or
incorporated or where is drawn in question the
application, interpretation or enforcement of
any:
***
(B) home rule charter or local ordinance
or resolution[.]
42 Pa.C.S. § 762(4)(i)(B).
In this case, Appellant is challenging the application and/or enforcement
of a local ordinance, thus falling within the Commonwealth Court’s jurisdiction
under section 762(4)(i)(B). We recognize that the Commonwealth has not
raised any issue with this Court’s jurisdiction and, therefore, “it is within our
discretion to transfer the matter to the Commonwealth Court or retain
jurisdiction.” Lara, Inc., v. Dorney Park Coaster Co., Inc., 534 A.2d 1062,
1066 (Pa. Super. 1987); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 704 (providing for an
exception to exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court if the appellee
does not object to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Superior Court). In Lara,
Inc., we explained that,
[i]n exercising this discretion, we must examine the question on
a case by case basis. This [C]ourt may retain jurisdiction over
cases that should have been appealed to the Commonwealth
Court in the interest of judicial economy. However, … the interest
of judicial economy must be weighed against other interests, one
of which is the possibility of establishing conflicting lines of
authority.
Lara, Inc., 534 A.2d at 1066. Notably, we cautioned in Lara, Inc., that “we
should be most cautious in assuming jurisdiction over matters that properly
belong before the Commonwealth Court.” Id. (footnote omitted).
-3-
J-S74008-19
Here, the Commonwealth Court has experience in the law regarding
local ordinances. Additionally, we seek to avoid the risk of establishing
conflicting lines of authority in that area of the law. Accordingly, we transfer
Appellant’s appeal.
Case transferred to Commonwealth Court. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/14/20
-4-