Commonwealth v. Boniella
158 A.3d 162
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- On Aug. 20, 2015, David Boniella went to Mount Macrina nursing home for a care-plan meeting for his mother; staff testified his mother did not want him present.
- Boniella attempted to enter the meeting room, pushed administrator Jolynn Meyers while she blocked the door, was described as very loud, and disrupted other residents; staff called police.
- Magisterial District Judge convicted Boniella of disorderly conduct and harassment; on de novo summary hearing the court convicted him of disorderly conduct only and fined him $50 plus costs.
- Boniella appealed pro se and was ordered to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement; the court’s order was returned as undeliverable, remanded, re-mailed, and Boniella filed his statement one day late.
- The Superior Court held Boniella’s pro se, untimely Rule 1925(b) statement waived his appellate issues but also addressed the merits and affirmed the conviction and denial of appointed counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict of disorderly conduct | Commonwealth: Meyers’ testimony that Boniella pushed her, was very loud, and disrupted residents proved elements | Boniella: No intent to cause disturbance; conduct was not violent/overly loud and was to leave with his father (legitimate purpose) | Affirmed: testimony was sufficient; the factfinder could credit Meyers’ account |
| Denial of request for court-appointed counsel | Commonwealth/Trial Ct.: Rule 122 requires appointment only when imprisonment is likely; court found imprisonment unlikely | Boniella: Requested appointed counsel for summary case | Affirmed: no error—imprisonment was unlikely and none was imposed, so no entitlement to counsel under Rule 122 |
| Timeliness / waiver of Rule 1925(b) statement | Boniella: Order was initially undeliverable and he later filed; sought relief/remand | Commonwealth: Pro se, untimely filing cannot be excused; pro se litigant cannot claim own ineffectiveness | Held: Issues waived due to untimely pro se Rule 1925(b) statement; court nevertheless found no merit to claims if considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Watley, 81 A.3d 108 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 145 A.3d 184 (Pa. Super. 2016) (treatment of untimely Rule 1925(b) statements by counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa. Super. 2009) (untimely Rule 1925(b) filing by counsel is per se ineffectiveness)
- Commonwealth v. Fletcher, 986 A.2d 759 (Pa. 2009) (a pro se defendant cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel on his own behalf)
- Commonwealth v. Blackham, 909 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Rule 122 requires appointment of counsel in summary cases only when imprisonment is likely)