Com. v. B.S. Comensky
28 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 31, 2016Background
- Comensky was charged by a City of Duquesne complaint (filed by code enforcement officer Allen Chiesi) alleging violations of the City Property Maintenance Code, specifically Sections 302.1 (unlicensed vehicle on premises) and 302.8 (exterior maintenance).
- Magisterial District Judge found Comensky guilty of both charges; Comensky appealed to the Allegheny County Common Pleas Court for de novo review.
- At the de novo hearing, the trial court found Comensky guilty of violating Section 302.1 and imposed a $300 fine but offered to vacate the order if Comensky moved the vehicle within 30 days.
- On appeal to the Commonwealth Court (Comensky proceeding pro se), he raised three principal objections: defects in the complaint form (no verification/signature), that Chiesi lacked authority/certification to issue the complaint, and that double jeopardy barred the prosecution because of a prior 2013 citation.
- The Commonwealth Court reviewed whether procedural defects prejudiced Comensky, whether a code enforcement officer may institute summary proceedings, and whether the later 2015 charge was barred by double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complaint form defect (lack of verification/signature) | Complaint invalid because Pa.R.Crim.P. 504 requires affiant verification and signature | Defect alone not fatal; relief requires showing of actual prejudice under Pa.R.Crim.P. 109 | Court: defect noted but not prejudicial; testimony supported complaint; no relief granted |
| Authority of affiant to file complaint | Chiesi not a law enforcement officer; lacked authority to issue criminal complaint | Code official may institute proceedings; where authorized, code enforcement officer is a law enforcement officer for Pa.R.Crim.P. purposes | Court: Chiesi authorized under local Code §106.3; filing proper |
| Certification under UCC | Chiesi not UCC-certified; therefore invalid to act as code official | Charges under municipal Code (not UCC); Chiesi was City Code official with authority to prosecute Code violations | Court: UCC certification not required here; Chiesi had authority; claim fails |
| Double jeopardy based on prior 2013 citation | Prior citation dismissed for witnesses’ absence—bar to reprosecution or requires prior abatement/notice under UCC §107 | 2013 dismissal did not constitute a final termination barring reprosecution; the 2015 offense was a separate occurrence; trial court also afforded abatement time | Court: No double jeopardy; prior matter did not produce a final order; 2015 event was a new violation; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Whiteford, 884 A.2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (code enforcement officers may be authorized to file criminal complaints)
- Commonwealth v. Daugherty, 829 A.2d 1273 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (code enforcement officer considered a law enforcement officer for Pa.R.Crim.P. 402 when charged with enforcement)
- Borough of Walnutport v. Dennis, 114 A.3d 11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (double jeopardy analysis for municipal ordinance violations and distinguishing separate offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Halstead, 79 A.3d 1240 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (standard of review for de novo summary conviction hearings)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (issues not raised in statement of errors on appeal are waived)