The opinion
J-S44015-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DAVID BROWN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
NANCY G. GIROUX, SUPT. AT SCI
ALBION, CHERYL GILL, RECORDS
SUPERVISOR AT SCI ALBION, AND JACK
DANERI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE
COUNTY, PA
Appellees No. 2023 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order December 3, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-MD-0000672-2014
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., and JENKINS, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED AUGUST 11, 2015
Appellant, a prisoner at SCI1 Albion, appeals from an order dismissing
his private criminal complaint against two prison officials and a district
attorney for “unlawfully restraining [his] liberty without a valid sentencing
order.” We affirm.
In 1988, Appellant was charged in Philadelphia with criminal offenses
at three caption numbers.2 In 1989, he was convicted in all three cases and
____________________________________________
1
State Correctional Institution.
2
CP-51-CR-1226781-1988, CP-51-CR-0909331-1988, CP-51-CR-0609531-
1988.
J-S44015-15
was sentenced to an aggregate of 4-13 years’ imprisonment. He completed
service of these sentences in 2002.
In 2010, Appellant was convicted in Lebanon County of fleeing and
eluding a police officer3 and was sentenced to 1-5 years’ imprisonment.4 He
is presently serving his Lebanon County sentence at SCI Albion in Erie
County.
In 2012, Appellant submitted a request to the Pennsylvania
Department of Corrections (“DOC”) for copies of his judgments of sentence
(“sentencing orders”) in two of the 1988 Philadelphia cases. The DOC
denied Appellant’s request on the ground that the records no longer exist.
On June 29, 2012, Appellant submitted an Inmate Request To Staff
Member requesting his sentencing orders in the Philadelphia cases. On July
9, 2012, Appellant’s Unit Manager wrote to Appellant: “SCI-Albion is in
possession of the DC-300B Court Commitment form with the official seal of
your sentencing court in your case. This document is legally sufficient to
hold you in the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ custody.”
On August 22, 2014, Appellant filed a private criminal complaint
against SCI Albion’s superintendent and records supervisor alleging official
____________________________________________
3
75 Pa.C.S. § 3733.
4
CP-38-CR-0000700-2010.
-2-
J-S44015-15
oppression and false imprisonment.5 According to Appellant, SCI Albion had
the duty under 42 Pa.C.S. § 97646 to maintain possession of his sentencing
orders from the Philadelphia cases, and its failure to produce copies of these
orders rendered his sentences void ab initio and transformed his
imprisonment into involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth
Amendment. Appellant demanded that SCI Albion’s officials be prosecuted,
apparently because Appellant believed that prosecution of these officials
would bring about his own release on his Lebanon County conviction.
Notably, Appellant did not challenge the lawfulness of his sentence in
the Lebanon County case or claim that SCI Albion lacks possession of the
Lebanon County sentencing order.
On October 7, 2014, the Erie County District Attorney declined to
prosecute Appellant’s complaint. On October 22, 2014, Appellant filed a
petition for review in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County challenging
____________________________________________
5
18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5301 and 2903, respectively.
6
Section 9764 provides in relevant part:
Upon commitment of an inmate to the custody of the
Department of Corrections, the sheriff or transporting official
shall provide to the institution’s records officer or duty officer, in
addition to a copy of the court commitment form DC-300B
generated from the Common Pleas Criminal Court Case
Management System of the unified judicial system, the following
information: ... A copy of the sentencing order and any detainers
filed against the inmate which the county has notice.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8).
-3-
J-S44015-15
the District Attorney’s denial of his private criminal complaint. The
Commonwealth filed a response that Appellant was lawfully under sentence
in the Lebanon County case. On December 3, 2014, the Erie County court
entered an opinion and order denying Appellant’s petition. Appellant
thereupon filed a timely appeal to this Court. Without ordering Appellant to
file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, the Erie County court filed a statement
under Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) referring this Court to its December 3, 2014 opinion
and order.
Appellant raises one argument in this appeal, which we rephrase for
purposes of brevity: the Erie County District Attorney abused its discretion
by denying Appellant’s private criminal complaint, because Appellant made a
“strong prima facie showing” that SCI Albion’s superintendent and record
keeper are violating Pennsylvania law and Appellant’s constitutional rights.
The pertinent legal principles are as follows:
-4-
J-S44015-15
A district attorney (‘D.A.’) has the authority to approve or
disapprove private criminal complaints. Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(A).[7]
If the D.A. decides to disapprove a private complaint, the D.A.
must advise the affiant of the reasons for the disapproval. Id.
at (B)(2). A disapproval may be based on purely legal grounds
(e.g., the complaint does not state a prima facie case or, even if
it does so, the D.A.’s investigation into the matter reveals there
is no evidentiary merit to the complaint). In re Private
Criminal Complaint of Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 211–12
(Pa.Super.2005). Alternatively, the choice to disapprove a
complaint may be a matter of policy (e.g., even if the case has
legal merit, prosecution thereof would not serve the public
interest). Id. at 212. Finally, the disapproval of a private
complaint may be a hybrid of both legal and policy reasons. Id.
If a D.A. disapproves a private criminal complaint, the private
affiant may appeal that disapproval to the Court of Common
Pleas. Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(B)(2). In such an appeal, the court must
first correctly identify the nature of the D.A.’s reason(s) for
disapproving the complaint. Wilson, 879 A.2d at 212. If the
____________________________________________
7
Pa.R.Crim.P. 506 provides in full:
Rule 506. Approval of Private Complaints
(A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the
complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the
Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without
unreasonable delay.
(B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth:
(1) approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this
decision on the complaint form and transmit it to the issuing
authority;
(2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the
reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant.
Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas
for review of the decision.
Id.
-5-
J-S44015-15
D.A.’s decision was based on legal grounds, the court undertakes
de novo review to determine whether the D.A. reached a proper
legal conclusion. Id. However, if the D.A. based the disapproval
on policy reasons, the court applies an abuse of discretion
standard, deferring to the D.A.’s decision absent bad faith, fraud
or unconstitutionality on the latter’s part. Id. Lastly, if the D.A.
relied on a hybrid of legal and policy bases, the court reviews the
D.A.’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Id.
When this Court reviews a Common Pleas Court’s decision
concerning private criminal complaints, our review is congruent
with the standard that was to be applied by the Common Pleas
Court. Thus, where a D.A. denied a complaint on purely legal
grounds and where the Common Pleas Court was therefore to
undertake de novo review, we review the Common Pleas Court’s
decision for an error of law, thereby applying a de novo standard
and a plenary scope of review. Id. at 214. However, where the
D.A. denied the complaint on a policy basis or a hybrid of legal
and policy bases, and where the Common Pleas Court was
therefore to apply an abuse of discretion standard, we similarly
review the court’s decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 215.
An abuse of discretion is not a mere error in judgment. Id. It is
a decision based on bias, partiality, prejudice, ill will, manifest
unreasonableness, or misapplication of law. Id.
Commonwealth ex rel. Guarrasi v. Carroll, 979 A.2d 383, 385-86
(Pa.Super.2009).
The District Attorney disapproved Appellant’s private criminal
complaint on the legal ground that Appellant was lawfully serving his
Lebanon County sentence at SCI-Albion. Thus, the Erie County court’s
standard of review and our standard of review is de novo. Carroll, 979 A.2d
at 385.
The Crimes Code defines official oppression as follows:
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or
taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a
misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct
is illegal, he:
-6-
J-S44015-15
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure,
mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other
infringement of personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of
any right, privilege, power or immunity.
18 Pa.C.S. § 5301. The Crimes Code defines false imprisonment in relevant
part as follows: “[A] person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if
he knowingly restrains another unlawfully so as to interfere substantially
with his liberty.” 18 Pa.C.S. § 2903(a).8
Applying the de novo standard of review, we conclude that the Erie
County District Attorney properly dismissed Appellant’s private criminal
complaint on legal grounds. In 2010, Appellant was sentenced to a term of
1-5 years’ imprisonment in the Lebanon County case. Individuals serving
maximum terms of imprisonment of five years or more must serve their
sentence at a state institution. Commonwealth v. Townsend, 693 A.2d
980, 982 (Pa.Super.1997) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. 9762). Because SCI Albion is
a state institution, it is legal for Appellant to serve his sentence there. He
was legally at SCI Albion at the time he filed his private criminal complaint in
2014, because his sentence did not expire until 2015. Therefore, Appellant’s
claims of official oppression and false imprisonment lack merit.
____________________________________________
8
The remainder of section 2903 concerns unlawful imprisonment of minors,
a subject not relevant here.
-7-
J-S44015-15
Appellant’s argument is hard to follow, but it appears to consist of
three points: (1) the DOC’s failure to produce the Philadelphia sentencing
orders shows that the Philadelphia court never entered judgments of
sentence; (2) this “failure to enter judgment” nullifies his Philadelphia
convictions; and (3) absent the Philadelphia convictions, his Lebanon County
sentence has already expired, rendering him a “modern day slave[]” at SCI
Albion. Brief For Appellant, p. 14. This is nonsense. The docket entries
from the Philadelphia cases, which the Commonwealth submitted in its
response to Appellant’s petition, demonstrate that the Philadelphia court
entered a judgment of sentence in each case. The aggregate term of the
Philadelphia sentences was 4-13 years’ imprisonment, and Appellant
completed serving these sentences in 2002. Appellant’s 1-5 year Lebanon
County sentence is an entirely separate legal event arising from a different
crime long after completion of Appellant’s Philadelphia sentences; the
validity of the Lebanon County sentence does not depend at all on the
Philadelphia sentences. Because the Lebanon County sentence began
running in 2010, it remained in force at the time of Appellant’s private
criminal complaint, thus validating his confinement at SCI Albion.
For these reasons, the Erie County court properly denied Appellant’s
petition for review of the Erie County District Attorney’s disapproval of
Appellant’s private criminal complaint.
Order affirmed.
-8-
J-S44015-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/11/2015
-9-