In the Int. of: D.W., a Minor

J-S14008-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN THE INTEREST OF: D.F.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
:
:
:
APPEAL OF: D.F.W., A MINOR : No. 1593 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Dispositional Order September 12, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-JV-0000115-2016
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 21, 2017
Appellant, D.F.W., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order
entered in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, following his
adjudication of delinquency on the charge of defiant trespass.1 We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant
facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to
restate them.
Appellant raises three issues for our review:
WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING
OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE
INFRACTION, IF ANY, WAS DE MINIMIS AS [APPELLANT’S]
ACTIONS WERE WITHIN CUSTOMARY LICENSE AND NO
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(b)(1)(i).
_____________________________
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S14008-17
HARM WAS SUFFERED BY OR THREATENED TO ANY
PARTY[?]
WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING
OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE
PREMISES WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND HE
REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT A TENANT HAD INVITED
HIM UPON THE PROPERTY[?]
WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING
OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE
TENANTS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE APPELLANT WAS
CHARGED WITH TRESPASS WERE ENTITLED TO A RIGHT
OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, WHICH CANNOT BE HONORED IF
THEIR LANDLORD CAN BAR CERTAIN GUESTS WITHOUT
PROCESS OR LIMITATION[?]
(Appellant’s Brief at 4).2
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P.
Goodman, we conclude Appellant’s remaining issues merit no relief. The
trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the
questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 10, 2016 at
3-6) (finding: (1) evidence showed Appellant had notice on several
occasions that he was not licensed or privileged to be on Housing Authority
____________________________________________
2
To the extent Appellant’s issue #3 complains on appeal about a tenant’s
right to quiet enjoyment, specifically a tenant’s right to invite Appellant on to
the property as a social guest, Appellant is not the proper party to make that
argument. See generally In re T.J., 559 Pa. 118, 124, 739 A.2d 478, 481
(1999) (stating: “In determining whether a party has standing, a court is
concerned only with the question of who is entitled to make a legal challenge
and not the merits of that challenge”; “the purpose of the ‘standing’
requirement is to insure that a legal challenge is by a proper party”).
Therefore, we give Appellant’s issue #3 no further attention.
-2-
J-S14008-17
property; Appellant admitted he knew he was not permitted on Housing
Authority property; Corporal Brian Reno credibly testified he had given
Appellant notice on prior occasions that Appellant was not permitted on
Housing Authority property, and when Corporal Reno confronted Appellant
on date of incident, Appellant fled; Appellant violated trespassing statute
when he entered Housing Authority property; Appellant’s actions did not
constitute de minimis violation; and (2) Jody Dunnigan, Pottsville Housing
Authority Deputy Executive Director, testified that property at issue belongs
to Housing Authority; Housing Authority maintains no-trespass list to protect
tenants’ peaceful enjoyment of their property; Housing Authority and police
can enforce no-trespass list; tenants had no right to allow Appellant to go
anywhere on Housing Authority property; in any event, Appellant was near
playground on property and was not in tenant’s residence). Accordingly, we
affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.
Dispositional order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 3/21/2017
-3-
Circulated 02/22/2017 12:00 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
JUVENILE DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF: No. JV-115-2016
D.W., A JUVENILE
Eric Lieberman, Esquire -for the Commonwealth
Karen Domalakes, Esquire -for the Juvenile
OPINION PURSURANT TO PA R.A.P. 1925
GOODMAN, J.
The Appellant, D.W. has filed an appeal to this Court's Order dated September
12, 2016 adjudicating the Appellant delinquent on the charges of Defiant Trespass. On
or about September 14, 2016, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior
Court which was served upon this Court. By Order of Court dated September 20, 2016
this Court directed the Appellant file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on
Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925. On September 27, 2016, the Appellant filed a
Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.
The Appellant raises the following three issues on appeal:
~;· °;A. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the
N Co~on Pleas decision because the infractions, if any was de minimis as
Q. his aitions were within customary license and no harm was suffered by or
thre~ened to any party.
0 -I
..,_J
e:; 3
B. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the
,;: Corgnon Pleas decision because the premises was open to the public and
i3 he.f§asonably believed that a tenant had invited him upon the property.
-·
[.
V')
C. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the
Common Pleas decision because the tenants of the property where
Appellant was charged with trespass were entitled to a right of quiet
enjoyment, which cannot be honored if their landlord can bar certain
guests-wi:thot1t-prores ·.
The Commonwealth presented testimony from Jody Dunnigan, the Deputy
Executive Director of the Pottsville Housing Authority. Mr. Dunnigan testified that the
Housing Authority assists income eligible people with housing assistance and the
Housing Authority owns a number of properties in the City of Pottsville including the
John O'Hara Complex. Mr. Dunnigan testified that the Housing Authority, as directed by
HUD, maintains a no trespass list in order to protect the tenants' peaceful enjoyment of
their property. The Appellant was on the no trespass list. A copy of the notice that was
given to the Appellant which stated that the Appellant is hereby banned from all
Pottsville Housing Authority properties including but not limited to the John O'Hara
property was admitted into evidence.
The Commonwealth also called Corporal Brian Reno of the Pottsville Police
Department. Corporal Reno testified that the Pottsville Police are provided every other
week with an updated trespass notice list from the Pottsville Housing Authority of
individuals who are banned from Housing Authority properties. Corporal Reno testified
that he had prior knowledge that the Appellant was banned from all Housing Authority
properties. Corporal Reno testified that he verbally advised the Appellant on numerous
occasions that he was not to be on Housing Authority property. The Corporal gave the
Appellant warnings on prior occasions and did not arrest the Appellant.
Corporal Reno testified that he was on patrol on May 21, 2016 at approximately
8:29 p.m. when he observed the Appellant at the John O'Hara Housing Authority
Complex which is a Pottsville Housing Authority property. The Appellant was next to the
playground which is approximately 30 feet from the steps that enter onto the John
O'Hara Housing Complex. Corporal Reno testified that the Appellant and another male
2
ran from the Housing Authority Complex down the steps onto Sanderson Street when
they saw his patrol vehicle.
The Appellant testified that he was playing basketball that day and was going to
visit his friend Josh Sankus who lived on Housing Authority property. The Appellant
testified that when he saw the police he walked and he did not run. On cross
examination the Appellant admitted that Corporal Reno was yelling to him that he was
not supposed to be on Housing Authority property. The Appellant also testified that he
be on Housing Authority property.
The Appellant presented the testimony of his friend, Josh Sankus and Josh
Sankus' mother, Lynn Memeke, who both testified that they live at 667 John O'Hara
which is the Housing Authority property. Mr. Sankus and his mother both testified that
they gave permission for the Appellant to go to their townhouse in the John O'Hara
Complex. On cross examination Mr. Sankus testified that he knew the Appellant wasn't
permitted to be on Pottsville Housing Authority property.
The first argument made by the Appellant was that his infraction was de minimis
and there was not harm suffered by or threatened to any party. The Appellant was
found guilty of Defiant Trespass under 18 Pa. CS.A. §3503(b) which states as follows:
3503. Criminal Trespass
(b) Defiant trespasser
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed
or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice
against trespass is given by:
(t)crctcrah:nmmunkatron-toi:he-a-ctor-.-----------------
3
The evidence clearly shows that the Appellant was given notice that he was not
licensed or privileged to be on Housing Authority property. Corporal Reno gave the
Appellant notice on prior occasions that he wasn't to be on Housing Authority property
and the Appellant admitted that he knew he wasn't to be on Housing Authority
property. The Appellant violated a criminal statute by trespassing on Housing Authority
property. Also, when the Appellant was confronted by Corporal Reno about trespassing
on Housing Authority property the credible testimony of Corporal Reno was that the
Ap13ellant nm from th6i po.1.i``e Coi..tr:t-d~A.o.t-ti.r:ld-the 4ppellant~s act~a de
minimis violation.
The Appellant's second and third contention is that the Appellant should not be
cited for trespass because he had permission from one of the tenants living at the John
O'Hara Complex. The Appellant relies on Branish v. NHP Propertv Management Inc.,
694 A.2d 1106 Pa. Super (1996) for the proposition that a tenant has the right to invite
social guests to his apartment and the landlord can't interfere with that right.
In Branish, the landlord, NHP Property Management, Inc., issued a no trespassing
letter to the boyfriend of one of the tenants because the boyfriend, without invitation,
entered the tenant's apartment and caused a disturbance and damages at the property.
The letter indicated that a violation of the letter would be reason to seek eviction of the
tenant. The tenant filed a motion for declaratory judgment requesting the court find
the "no trespassing" letter void. The court found the letter void and ordered that the
landlord was barred from evicting the tenant for violating the letter.
The court determined that the Landlord and Tenant Act allows the tenant to
invite soctat g a ests to hts-property-as-long-as-the-ten·a-nt-observes-his-ebHgatier-i531 A.2d 22 (1987). The Court ruled that by preventing
the tenant from inviting social guests to her townhouse the landlord interfered with the
tenant's possession.
,GJse, bot.thJ.o~h..Sa.r.1k~-a,r:id-hi.s-r.i:lo.tller.....tes.1ifi.ecLtbat they gave the
---------:tAG-i~-At
Appellant permission to be in their townhouse. The Appellant relies on Branish for the
proposition that as long as the tenants give permission to a third party to be on their
property then that third party can go anywhere on Housing Authority property that the
tenant would be able to go. This Court found the instant case distinguishable from
Branish because the Appellant was not located in the tenant's dwelling.
The Commonwealth presented testimony from Jody Dunnigan, the Pottsville
Housing Authority Deputy Executive Director that the John O'Hara Complex is one of
the public housing projects of the Pottsville Housing Authority. The John O'Hara
Housing Complex is a 50 Unit Public Housing Complex located in 600 block of Laurel
Boulevard. The Housing Authority as directed by HUD maintains a no trespass list to
protect the tenants' peaceful enjoyment of their property.
The Appellant was given notice on previous occasions that he was not be on
housing authority property. Corporal Reno testified that he observed the Appellant on
the John O'Hara property on previous occasions and that he gave the Appellant
warntng-s:-T-h-e-App-eHant-testified-tha-t-he-knew-he-wasn!.t--te-be-on-Hot1sln~-A1:1-thot~ty----
5
property. The Court found the testimony of Officer Reno credible that when the
Appellant was confronted by Officer Reno for being on Housing Authority property the
Appellant fled from the Housing Authority property down the steps on to Sanderson
Street.
The tenants did not have the right to allow the Appellant to go anywhere on
Housing Authority property. The Court determined that the Pottsville Housing
Authority and the Pottsville Police could enforce their no trespass list. The Appellant
.......... -----v·,v, va"'s.-1n-t+e""a-f--tAe--f*-cl¥§f·C:H:1-A4-aR~9t-~A-tA,e-ter:iaf.l:t.'..s-towr.il:io~e-aACL.tber.e.f.o.r:e-the..l:!.ous.irig _
Authority and the police did not interfere with the tenant's use of quiet enjoyment of
their property.
6