# Commonwealth v. Simmons

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 27, 1989 · 388 Pa. Super. 271

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652394

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Brian SIMMONS, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 27, 1989
- **Citations:** 388 Pa. Super. 271; 565 A.2d 481; 1989 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3197
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brosky
- **Judges:** Cirillo, Brosky, McEwen, Sole, Montemuro, Beck, Tamilia, Popovich, Johnson
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652394

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating this Court does not have the power to review the work of an inferior tribunal, as on certiorari, where no statutory right of appeal exists and that the Judicial Code does not grant us any broad discretionary power of review

## Opinion text

BROSKY, Judge,
concurring.
I join Judge Johnson’s Opinion. I write separately only to add the following observation.
Appellant urges us to consider a memorandum which established guidelines for the selection of cases for the Career Criminal Program in Philadelphia County. This memorandum was purportedly prepared by then Chief of the Career Criminal Unit, Ronald D. Castille, of the Philadelphia County District Attorney’s Office. This memorandum appears only as an exhibit attached to appellant’s original panel brief filed with this court. It does not otherwise appear as part of the record certified to us.
By considering this memorandum, we would be taking the bold step of creating, at least by implication, a new rule of appellate procedure which would permit an appellate court to consider a matter dehors the record to form the basis of its decision. Such a procedure, in my view, is contrary to the settled jurisprudence of this Commonwealth and is beyond the scope of authority vested in this Court by the Constitution. In its current posture, i.e., as an exhibit *280 appended to appellant’s Brief, the memorandum cannot legally serve as the vehicle through which appellant now seeks a determination on the merits.
Only the original papers filed in the lower court, including any transcripts, and the certified copy of docket entries constitute the record on appeal. Pa.R.App.P. 1921. Appellate courts are bound by the duly certified record in rendering their decisions. See Commonwealth v. Young, 456 Pa. 102 , 317 A.2d 258 (1974). Moreover, and relevant to the instant matter, the courts of this Commonwealth have determined that auxiliary information appended to the briefs of the parties falls outside the scope of appellate consideration. Society Hill Towers Owners Ass’n v. Matthew, 306 Pa.Super. 13 , 451 A.2d 1366 (1982); McAllonis v. Pryor, 301 Pa.Super. 473 , 448 A.2d 5 (1982); McKenna v. Commonwealth, State Horse Racing Comm’n, 83 Pa.Commw. 116, 476 A.2d 505 (1984). See also Woolard v. Burton, 345 Pa.Super. 366 , 498 A.2d 445 (1985) (copy of proceedings in another matter appended to appellate brief not considered by court in rendering its decision because not of record in trial court). Cf. In re Estate of Brockerman, 332 Pa.Super. 88 , 480 A.2d 1199 (1984) (appellate court barred from considering material not filed of record even if contained in reproduced record); Pittsburgh’s Airport Motel, Inc. v. Airport Asphalt & Excavating Co., 322 Pa.Super. 149 , 469 A.2d 226 (1983) (document not filed of record does not become a part thereof by mere expedient reproduction).
This court has not been given, either expressly or by implication, a mandate to promulgate rules governing appellate procedure. Instead, this power has been vested by constitutional fiat in the Supreme Court of this Commonwealth. See Pa. Const. art. 5, § 10(c).
For the above reasons, I concur and join the majority.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652394. Public record. Not legal advice.