Com. v. Stateagent, LLC ( 2021 )

J-A13027-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
STATEAGENT, LLC : No. 1766 EDA 2018
Appeal from the Order Entered May 8, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-51-MD-0006134-2017
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED June 21, 2021
The Commonwealth appeals from the Order granting a private detective
license to Stateagent, LLC (“Appellee”), an agency owned and operated by
Lamont Hudson, a licensed private detective. The Commonwealth asserts that
the trial court erred in granting Appellee a private detective license because
Appellee did not support its license application with certifications required
under the Private Detective Act of 1953, 22 P.S. §§ 11-30. Because the
Commonwealth failed to raise this issue before the trial court, it is waived.
We, thus, affirm.
The trial court granted Mr. Hudson’s Petition for a private detective’s
license on April 4, 2017. On September 14, 2017, Mr. Hudson filed a Petition
for a private detective license for Appellee.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A13027-21
On May 8, 2018, the trial court held a hearing on Appellee’s Petition.1
The Commonwealth objected to the Petition, stating only: “Neither Mr. Hudson
nor the corporate structure, the—the company name were qualified because
they did not meet the qualifications . . . I would assume that, if he was not
qualified, they would then transpose that onto the company name as well.”
N.T., 5/8/18, at 7-8. After emphasizing that Mr. Hudson did, indeed, have a
valid private detective’s license, the court stated, “I really can’t see any reason
not to grant the license for the agency if he already has a valid license for
himself. All right, I’m going to grant it.” Id. at 8. The prosecutor did not
object or otherwise attempt to delineate the reasons underlying the general
claim that Appellee did not qualify for the license. The Commonwealth did not
seek reconsideration.
The Commonwealth timely appealed. The court ordered the
Commonwealth to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement. The Commonwealth
complied, raising for the first time the same question it now presents in its
Brief:
Did the lower court err in granting a private detective license to
Stateagent, LLC, where the applicant failed to establish, by at
____________________________________________
1 At the May 8, 2018 hearing, the parties and the court noted that a hearing
on the Petition had occurred in November 2017, but because Mr. Hudson failed
to appear, the court dismissed the Petition without prejudice. See N.T.,
5/8/18, at 4. However, immediately after that dismissal, Mr. Hudson re-filed
the identical Petition, and the motions clerk relisted the matter. At the May
8th hearing, the court confirmed with Mr. Hudson that Appellee’s new Petition
was identical to the Petition filed September 14, 2017. The hearing then
proceeded with no objection from the Commonwealth. Id. at 6-8.
-2-
J-A13027-21
least two duly acknowledged certificates, that it or at least one
member of it has been regularly employed as a detective, or has
been a member of the United States government investigative
service, a sheriff, a member of the Pennsylvania State Police or a
member of a city police department of a rank or grade higher than
that of patrolman, for a period of not less than three years?
Appellant’s Brief at 4.
In its Brief, the Commonwealth contends that the lower court erred in
granting the license to Appellee because Appellee “failed to demonstrate, by
at least two duly acknowledged certificates, that it or at least one of its
members had the requisite experience under the statute.” Id. at 6. We
conclude the Commonwealth waived this issue for, among other reasons,
failing to preserve it before the trial court.
With a few exceptions, none of which is present in this case, “[i]ssues
not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal.” Pa.R.A.P. 302(a). Additionally, an appellant may not raise an
issue for the first time in a Rule 1925(b) Statement. Commonwealth v.
Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 797 (Pa. Super. 2015).
Here, the Commonwealth avers that at the May 8, 2018 hearing, it
“stated that it opposed the granting of [Appellee’s] petition because [the
petition] did not meet the qualifications required by the statute.” Appellant’s
Br. at 5. We find that the Commonwealth waived the issue because it failed
to raise it before the trial court.
Our review of the 8-page transcript from the May 8, 2018 hearing
reveals that the Commonwealth did not mention the statute at all. See N.T.
-3-
J-A13027-21
at 5-8. In fact, the Commonwealth presented essentially no argument after
the prosecutor stated that Appellee “[was] not qualified . . . because they did
not meet the qualifications.” Id. at 7-8. The prosecutor did not expand on
exactly what qualifications Appellee did not meet, did not mention the relevant
statute at all, and provided absolutely no argument regarding the documents
that were or were not annexed to Appellee’s license application. The
Commonwealth’s general statement at the hearing, without more, did not
preserve for appellate review the issue it now raises.2 Accordingly, the issue
is waived. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/21/2021
____________________________________________
2 The Commonwealth also argues that the court erred in granting Appellee’s
license because “Hudson’s … [individual license] petition should have been
denied because he failed to provide the proper certification of his criminal
investigative background.” Appellant’s Br. at 10-11. This Court rejected that
argument in resolving the Commonwealth’s appeal from the Order granting
Mr. Hudson’s 2019 private detective license renewal. Commonwealth v.
Hudson, No. 2755 EDA 2019 (Pa. Super. filed Oct. 5, 2020). The argument,
thus, provides no reason to reverse the trial court’s order in this case.
-4-