Com. v. Mobley, K.
Com. v. Mobley, K. No. 642 EDA 2011
| Pa. Super. Ct. | May 26, 2017Background
- Defendant Kevin Mobley pled nolo contendere to third‑degree murder on August 30, 2010 and was sentenced to 15–30 years.
- Mobley filed post‑sentence motions (including jurisdictional challenges); the trial court denied them on February 7, 2011. He filed a timely appeal on March 8, 2011.
- Trial court ordered a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement; Mobley’s counsel did not file one. Superior Court found prior appellate counsel per se ineffective and remanded for a nunc pro tunc 1925(b) statement and a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
- Mobley filed a 1925(b) statement on February 9, 2017; the trial court issued a Rule 1925(a) opinion on March 24, 2017.
- On appeal Mobley raised four constitutional and jurisdictional challenges: (1) the 1968 Pennsylvania Constitution revision was invalid; (2) the Pennsylvania Constitution lacks authorization for a criminal code; (3) the 1968 ratification abolished the District Attorney’s prosecutorial power; and (4) the Crimes Code lacks an enacting clause, depriving courts of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 1968 constitutional revision | 1968 revision was impermissible under the 1776 Constitution’s prohibition on altering the constitution | The 1968 changes were approved by electorate via amendment process | Rejected — amendments were validly adopted by electorate; claim without merit |
| Authority to enact a criminal code | Pennsylvania Constitution contains no express provision authorizing a criminal code, so courts lack jurisdiction over criminal matters | Nothing in the Constitution prohibits enacting criminal statutes; Crimes Code valid exercise of legislative power | Rejected — following Commonwealth v. Stultz, enactment of Crimes Code and Motor Vehicle Code valid |
| Effect of 1968 ratification on DA power | Ratification abolished the District Attorney’s authority to prosecute, making convictions void | No legal authority supports this; claim inadequately developed | Waived for lack of development; meritless if considered |
| Crimes Code lacks enacting clause | Absence of an enacting clause invalidates criminal charges and jurisdiction | Issue not raised below or in 1925(b); alternatively, official codification includes an enacting clause | Waived for failure to preserve and develop; alternatively meritless per Stultz review |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Stultz, 114 A.3d 865 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (upholding validity of Crimes Code and rejecting savings‑clause/constitution repeal arguments)
- Commonwealth v. Grazier, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1998) (standards for permitting a defendant to proceed pro se)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (failure to develop appellate arguments results in waiver)
- Irwin Union Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. v. Famous, 4 A.3d 1099 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2010) (appellate court will not develop arguments for appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) (issues not raised in 1925(b) statement are waived)
Judgment of sentence affirmed.