Com. v. Courtley, C.
Com. v. Courtley, C. No. 1218 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 13, 2017Background
- On March 5, 2016 Courtley received a parking citation for violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3353(a)(1)(x). A magisterial district judge found him guilty and fined him $50.00 on June 7, 2016.
- Courtley appealed for a trial de novo in the Court of Common Pleas; the de novo trial was scheduled for July 13, 2016.
- Courtley failed to appear on July 13, 2016; the trial court dismissed his appeal and entered judgment against him under Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D).
- On July 20, 2016 Courtley appeared, explained he had overslept due to a late work assignment, and the trial court (over the Commonwealth’s objection) vacated the July 13 dismissal and announced a verdict of not guilty.
- The Commonwealth appealed, challenging the trial court’s entry of a not-guilty verdict after vacating the dismissal; the Superior Court considered whether it had jurisdiction because an acquittal may be unappealable if jeopardy attached.
- The Superior Court concluded the trial court had jurisdiction under 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 to vacate within 30 days, found jeopardy had not attached because no sworn testimony/evidence was taken, but held the trial court erred by vacating without first finding cause for Courtley’s absence; remanded for a hearing on cause and admonished the Commonwealth for improper accusations against the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Courtley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by entering a not-guilty verdict after vacating its order dismissing the de novo appeal | Trial court improperly vacated dismissal without first finding Courtley lacked cause for absence; thus vacatur and acquittal were erroneous | Courtley argued for reconsideration and relief from dismissal based on his explanation for missing the hearing (oversleeping due to work) | Court vacated but Superior Court held vacatur was procedurally premature because trial court made no finding of cause; remanded for hearing to determine cause |
| Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction to review the appeal of an acquittal | Acquittal is final only if jeopardy attached; if no jeopardy, appeal is permissible | If jeopardy attached, Commonwealth cannot appeal an acquittal | Jeopardy did not attach because no sworn testimony/evidence was taken; Superior Court has jurisdiction to review |
| Whether the trial court had authority to vacate its July 13 order | Trial court acted within § 5505 and Rule 720 comment — could act on a petition for reconsideration within 30 days | Courtley relied on trial court’s authority to reconsider within statutory time | Superior Court held the trial court had jurisdiction to vacate within 30 days under § 5505 and Rule 720 comment |
| Proper remedy if cause for absence is shown | Commonwealth sought reversal/remand for reinstatement of dismissal | If cause is shown, defendant entitled to new trial de novo | If trial court finds cause on remand, it should vacate July 13 dismissal and schedule new de novo trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Demora, 149 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2016) (jurisdiction may be raised sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Martorano, 634 A.2d 1063 (Pa. 1993) (acquittal verdict generally unreviewable due to double jeopardy)
- Commonwealth v. Walczak, 655 A.2d 592 (Pa. Super. 1995) (double jeopardy bars appeal from acquittal; acquittal is absolutely final)
- Martinez v. Illinois, 134 S. Ct. 2070 (U.S. 2014) (if jeopardy attaches and defendant is acquitted, prosecution may not appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Stark, 584 A.2d 289 (Pa. 1990) (vacatur by a court lacking jurisdiction is a legal nullity)
- Commonwealth v. Martin, 97 A.3d 363 (Pa. Super. 2014) (jeopardy in a bench trial attaches when the court begins to hear evidence)
- Tecce v. Hally, 106 A.3d 728 (Pa. Super. 2014) (unsworn statements are not testimony; lack of oath means no testimony)
- Commonwealth v. Dixon, 66 A.3d 794 (Pa. Super. 2013) (trial court must determine whether absentee defendant had adequate cause before dismissing for failure to appear)
- Commonwealth v. Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d 249 (Pa. Super. 2002) (if good cause is shown for absence, defendant is entitled to a new summary trial)