Com. v. One (1) 1988 Ford Mustang LX Automobile

J-S96011-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ONE (1) 1988 FORD MUSTANG LX
AUTOMOBILE VIN 1FABP443JF259018
WITH FORD ENGINE
VIN1FACP42E8LF225606 AND COIL
WIRE AND ASSORTED ITEMS OF
PERSONAL PROPERTY
APPEAL OF: ANDY LARGE No. 226 WDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered January 14, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Butler County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-10-MD-0000054-2015
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SOLANO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2016
Andy Large appeals pro se from the trial court’s January 14, 2016
order denying his “Motion in Opposition to Order of Forfeiture.” Large
contends that the trial court erred by granting the Commonwealth’s petition
for forfeiture of certain property owned by Large because the forfeiture
petition was filed outside the 2-year statute of limitations. We affirm.
In its brief to this Court, the Commonwealth provides a summary of
the facts and procedural history that culminated in Large’s filing of this
appeal:1
____________________________________________
1
The trial court did not provide a factual or procedural history in its
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, and Large has only set forth, in his pro se brief, a
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S96011-16
On October 13, 2006[,] the Pennsylvania State Police
executed a search warrant at 1103 Euclid School Road in Clay
Township, Butler County. As a result of this search, the items of
property that are the subject of this appeal were seized. The
execution of this warrant was part of an investigation into a
burglary, auto theft, and [a] “chop shop” ring operating in Butler
County. Based on the totality of the circumstances of the case,
the Commonwealth believed that these items constituted
derivative contraband and were therefore forfeitable under the
Motor Vehicle Chop Shop and Illegally Obtained and Altered
Property Act[2] and/or Pennsylvania common law. In addition to
the items at issue in this case, numerous other items were
seized in the course of this investigation and ownership of these
other items has been litigated in various proceedings, including
before this Court [in] [Commonwealth v. Large, No.] 1335
WDA 2008[, unpublished memorandum at 1-8 (Pa. Super. filed
July 28, 2009)].
On March 2, 2007[,] Large was charged with numerous
offenses relating to his involvement in this criminal enterprise.
On September 12, 2007[,] Large entered into an open plea
agreement to four felony counts of owning, operating, or
conducting a chop shop.3 On November 11, 2007, Large was
sentenced to an aggregate sentence of six to twelve years of
incarceration and ordered to pay a $300 fine and approximately
$53,000 in restitution. Litigation not pertinent to the instant
matter then ensued.
3
18 P.S. §1.3[, repealed and] now [found at] 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§7702.
The next event relevant for the purposes of this appeal
occurred on February 17, 2015[,] when the Commonwealth filed
a Petition for Forfeiture and Condemnation in the Court of
Common Pleas of Butler County, which was docketed at CP-10-
MD-54-2015. The following day, [the trial court] issued a Rule
to Show Cause on [] Large and any other individual or entity
with a possible claim on the property[,] to show [cause] why the
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
cursory overview of the history underlying his appeal. Thus, we rely on the
Commonwealth’s more developed explanation.
2
See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 7701-7708.
-2-
J-S96011-16
Petition should not be granted. Although Large was served with
this filing, there was no response. On January 8, 2016[,] the
Commonwealth moved for an Order of Forfeiture, which was
granted on January 11, 2016. On January 13, 2016[,] Large
filed a Motion in Opposition to Order of Forfeiture…. In that
Motion, Large alleged only that the Commonwealth’s February
17, 2015 Petition had not been filed in a timely manner.
Commonwealth’s Brief at 2-4 (some footnotes omitted).
On January 14, 2016, the trial court denied Large’s “Motion in
Opposition to Order of Forfeiture.” Large then filed a timely, pro se notice of
appeal with this Court.3 He also timely complied with the trial court’s order
to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on
appeal, presenting the following, verbatim issue:
On November 9th, 2006 property belonging to Andy Large was
seized. An action of forfeiture was filed in 2015. Trial court
erred in denying appellants motion in opposition to forfeiture due
____________________________________________
3
We recognize “that, ordinarily, appeals from decisions in forfeiture actions
fall under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court.” Commonwealth v.
Smith, 722 A.2d 167, 169 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citing, inter alia, 42 Pa.C.S. §
762 (vesting jurisdiction in the Commonwealth Court over appeals from final
orders entered by the trial court in civil actions commenced by the
Commonwealth government)). However, this Court has also “declined to
transfer an appeal to the Commonwealth Court where neither party timely
objected to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court[,]” and where the interests
of judicial economy weigh in favor of this Court’s retaining jurisdiction. Id.
(quoting Commonwealth v. Griffin, 595 A.2d 101, 104 (Pa. Super. 1991)).
Because neither party in the present case questions the jurisdiction of this
Court to hear Large’s appeal, any challenge on this basis is waived, and we
retain jurisdiction in the interest of judicial economy. Id. (citing Pa.R.A.P.
741(a) and General Municipal Authority v. Yuhas, 572 A.2d 1291, 1293
(Pa. Super. 1990) (stating that it is within a panel’s discretion to decline to
transfer a case even where the Commonwealth Court has exclusive
jurisdiction over matters raised on appeal if neither party objects to the
exercise of appellate jurisdiction by the Superior Court)).
-3-
J-S96011-16
to violation of procedural due process of law. An action of
forfeiture was not commenced within the (2) year statute of
limitation to do so according to 42 PaCSA § 5524.
Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) Statement, 3/7/16.
In his brief to this Court, Large presents three claims for our review,
two of which are encompassed within the issue he preserved in his Rule
1925(b) statement. See Large’s Brief at 3 (stating two of his issues as: “Did
[the] Commonwealth violate [] Larges [sic] rights by filing for forfeiture
[]nine years after seizing [the] property?” and “Did [the trial court] err in
denying [] Large’s motion in opposition to forfeiture?”) (unnecessary
capitalization omitted). However, Large’s third issue, in which he claims that
the Commonwealth “should have returned [the] property to [] Large that
was not derivative contraband nor had nexus to [the] crime[,]” was not set
forth in, nor suggested by, Large’s Rule 1925(b) statement. Id.
(unnecessary capitalization omitted). Thus, this claim is waived for our
review.4 See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the
Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this
paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).
____________________________________________
4
We also note that Large did not raise this claim in his “Motion in Opposition
to Order of Forfeiture” filed on January 13, 2016. Therefore, it is waived on
this basis, as well. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower
court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
-4-
J-S96011-16
In regard to Large’s preserved claims, we are guided by the following
standard of review:
The Court's review of a forfeiture proceeding is limited to
examining whether the findings of fact made by the trial court
are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court
abused its discretion or committed an error of law.
Commonwealth v. Funds in Merrill Lynch Account Owned by Peart,
777 A.2d 519, 523 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (citing Strand v. Chester Police
Department, 687 A.2d 872 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)).
Here, Large argues that the Commonwealth’s petition for forfeiture
was filed outside the 2-year statute of limitations and, therefore, the court
should have denied it. In rejecting Large’s argument, the court concluded
that he had waived this claim by failing to raise it in response to the
Commonwealth’s petition for forfeiture. The court stressed that the
Commonwealth’s petition, as well as a Rule to Show Cause issued by the
court, were “served upon [Appellant] on or about February 24, 2015[,]” yet
Appellant never filed a response. Trial Court Opinion, 5/25/16, at 1. The
court further noted that,
[o]nly after [it] issued the order granting forfeiture … on January
11, 2016 did [Appellant] file a Motion in Opposition to Order of
Forfeiture. In Commonwealth v. Romberger, 474 Pa. 190,
378 A.2d 283, 286 (1977), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
explains, “it is a fundamental doctrine in this jurisdiction that
where an issue is cognizable in a given proceeding and it is not
raised it is waived and will not be considered on a review of that
proceeding.”
-5-
J-S96011-16
Id. at 1-2 (one internal citation omitted). For these reasons, the court
deemed Large’s challenge to the order granting forfeiture waived and,
consequently, it denied his “Motion in Opposition to Order of Forfeiture.”
On appeal, Large offers no response to the trial court’s conclusion that
he waived his statute-of-limitations challenge to the Commonwealth’s
petition for forfeiture. Notably, Large acknowledges that he was served with
a copy of that petition. See Large’s Brief at 6. The record also reveals that
the forfeiture petition contained a “Notice to Answer Petition for Forfeiture
and Condemnation” that explicitly informed Large that he was “required to
file an answer to [the] petition, setting forth [his] title in, and right to
possession of, said property within thirty (30) days from the service
hereof….” See Petition for Forfeiture and Condemnation, 2/17/15, at 1
(unnumbered; unnecessary capitalization omitted). The notice attached to
the petition further declared that “if [Large] fail[ed] to file said answer, a
decree of forfeiture and condemnation [would] be entered against said
property.” Id. (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
Thus, it is clear that Large received explicit notice that he was required
to file an answer to the Commonwealth’s forfeiture petition, and he also was
informed that forfeiture would be granted if he failed to do so. Nevertheless,
Large made no effort to assert his claim that forfeiture was time-barred by
the statute of limitations until after the court issued the order granting
forfeiture in January of 2016, nearly one year after the Commonwealth’s
forfeiture petition was filed. Large offers no explanation for his failure to file
-6-
J-S96011-16
a response to the Commonwealth’s petition, nor any argument that the court
erred by concluding that he waived his statute-of-limitations claim by failing
to do so. In light of this record, Large has not demonstrated that the trial
court abused its discretion or committed an error of law by denying his
“Motion in Opposition to Order of Forfeiture.”
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/29/2016
-7-