Com. v. Capps, J.
Com. v. Capps, J. No. 722 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 24, 2017Background
- Appellant Jessica Taylor Capps was charged with underage drinking (18 Pa.C.S. § 6308(a)) after an October 31, 2015 incident and was cited on November 6, 2015.
- On January 6, 2016 the magisterial district judge placed Capps into a pre‑adjudication disposition (ARD/adjunct adjudication alternative) under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308(c) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 1520; she did not plead guilty.
- Capps completed (or enrolled in) an online underage‑drinking course to satisfy program conditions; later she received DOT notice of a 90‑day license suspension tied to ARD participation under § 6310.4.
- On March 16, 2016 Capps filed a motion in the trial court to be removed from the ARD program, alleging she relied on the magisterial judge’s assurance that her driving privileges would not be suspended and would have proceeded to trial if informed otherwise.
- Trial court denied Capps’s motion after oral argument (Capps was not allowed to testify at the hearing); Capps appealed the denial to the Superior Court.
- The dissenting memorandum (Judge Olson) concludes the order denying withdrawal from ARD is interlocutory and unappealable, so the appeal should be quashed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Capps) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court’s denial of motion to withdraw from ARD is appealable | Capps argues she was misinformed by the magisterial judge and only entered ARD because she believed her license would not be suspended; she sought removal and remand for de novo trial | Commonwealth argues ARD admission is interlocutory and not a conviction; appeal is premature | Dissent holds the denial is interlocutory and unappealable; appeal should be quashed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether mistaken assurance about collateral consequences (license suspension) justifies withdrawal from ARD | Capps contends judicial misinformation induced her participation and warrants rescission of ARD | Commonwealth would maintain statutory effects of ARD (including license suspension) apply and remedy is to proceed in court to terminate ARD, not immediate appeal | Dissent implies remedy is non‑appealable: seek termination in trial court and proceed to trial rather than interlocutory appeal |
| Whether delay in filing motion affects relief (timeliness/excusable delay) | Capps asserts she filed promptly after receiving DOT notice and any delay was due to magisterial court operational breakdown | Commonwealth likely asserts procedural timeliness not met or irrelevant if order is interlocutory | Dissent does not reach merits; focuses on lack of appellate jurisdiction instead |
| Whether order denying withdrawal is a final judgment of sentence | Capps treats ARD entry as producing adverse consequences akin to conviction warranting appellate review | Commonwealth/precedent treat ARD acceptance as nonfinal, a program placement not a conviction | Dissent: ARD acceptance and denial to withdraw are interlocutory; appeal must be quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Getz, 598 A.2d 1309 (Pa. Super. 1991) (acceptance into ARD is interlocutory and not appealable)
- Commonwealth v. Feagley, 538 A.2d 895 (Pa. Super. 1988) (appeal quashed from order accepting appellant into ARD; interlocutory)
- Commonwealth v. Kurilla, 570 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Super. 1990) (general rule: appeals only from final judgment of sentence in criminal cases)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Dir’s Ass’n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (definition and limits of final orders for appellate jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Garcia, 43 A.3d 470 (Pa. 2012) (catalog of interlocutory appellate procedures and jurisdictional rules)