In Re: Grant, J., Appeal of: Grant, J. ( 2021 )

J-S46021-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: JERMAINE GRANT : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
APPEAL OF: JERMAINE GRANT :
:
:
:
:
: No. 1686 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Dated June 4, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-MD-0007198-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY SHOGAN, J.: Filed: March 11, 2021
Appellant, Jermaine Grant, appeals pro se from the order entered in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on June 4, 2019, denying his
motion for return of property. Because jurisdiction properly lies with the
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, we transfer this appeal.
On October 9, 2018, Appellant filed a motion for return of property
requesting the return of $2,180.00 that was seized as evidence at the time of
his arrest on May 16, 2013. Motion, 10/9/18. On October 23, 2014, Appellant
was acquitted of the narcotics charges related to the arrest. Trial Court
Opinion, 10/29/19, at 1. On March 5, 2019, the Commonwealth filed a motion
to dismiss Appellant’s request. The trial court denied Appellant’s motion on
June 4, 2019. In reaching its determination, the trial court relied upon
Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709 (Pa. 2014) (“Allen II”), an appeal
J-S46021-20
from a Commonwealth Court decision involving a motion for return of
property. Appellant filed this timely appeal from the trial court’s decision.
Prior to addressing this appeal, we consider whether the Commonwealth
Court has jurisdiction over this matter. See Blount v. Philadelphia Parking
Authority, 965 A.2d 226, 229 (Pa. 2009) (stating that a reviewing court may
raise the issue of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction over an
action sua sponte). The Commonwealth Court has explained that actions
involving a petition for return of property, although “quasi-criminal in
character,” are civil proceedings. Commonwealth v. Allen, 59 A.3d 677,
679 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (“Allen I”), aff’d but criticized, 107 A.3d 709 (Pa.
2014).1 As such, this appeal implicates claims within the jurisdiction of the
Commonwealth Court. See In re One 1988 Toyota Corolla (Blue Two-
Door Sedan) Pa. License TPV 291, 675 A.2d 1290, 1296 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1996) (holding that the Commonwealth Court has the authority to hear
appeals from orders disposing of motions for the return of property).
The Commonwealth Court routinely reviews decisions involving petitions
for the return of property. See Allen I, 59 A.3d 677 (affirming dismissal of
____________________________________________
1 We note that in Allen II, our Supreme Court criticized Allen I, holding that
the Commonwealth Court erred by relying “on a statute of limitations analysis
to resolve the timeliness" of the motion filed by the appellant, concluding
instead that the “failure to file a return motion during the pendency of the
criminal charges against him or within thirty days following dismissal of the
charges result[ed] in waiver, precluding review of his stand-alone return
petition.” Allen II, 107 A.3d 709, 718.
-2-
J-S46021-20
motion for return of property); Commonwealth v. Perez, 941 A.2d 778 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2008) (affirming denial of a motion for the return of seized property);
In re One 1988 Toyota, 675 A.2d 1290 (affirming the denial of the
appellant’s motion to return an automobile and granting the Commonwealth’s
petition to have the automobile forfeited as derivative contraband). As noted
above, our Supreme Court’s decision in Allen II, 107 A.3d 709, the case relied
upon by the trial court in reaching the instant determination, is an appeal from
a Commonwealth Court decision. As we have long stated, “[W]e should be
most cautious in assuming jurisdiction over matters that properly belong
before the Commonwealth Court.” Lara, Inc., v. Dorney Park Coaster Co.,
Inc., 534 A.2d 1062, 1066 (Pa. Super. 1987). Hence, we conclude that
jurisdiction properly lies with our sister court, and we transfer this appeal to
the Commonwealth Court. Pa.R.A.P. 752(a).2
Appeal transferred to Commonwealth Court. Jurisdiction relinquished.
____________________________________________
2 “The Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court, on their own motion or
on application of any party, may transfer any appeal to the other court for
consideration and decision with any matter pending in such other court
involving the same or related questions of fact, law or discretion.” Pa.R.A.P.
752(a).
-3-
J-S46021-20
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/11/21
-4-