Commonwealth v. Halstead
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 469
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Halstead owned a commercial property formerly a school in the Borough of Weaver; Borough code officer issued an enforcement letter (30 days to abate) and Halstead appealed to the Borough Appeal Board but did not attend the hearing.
- Borough issued summary citations (May 2012) charging seven violations of the Property Maintenance Ordinance (PMO); an MDJ convicted Halstead in Sept. 2012 and imposed fines; Halstead appealed to the Court of Common Pleas.
- At the de novo trial-court hearing Halstead again did not appear (his attorney did); the trial court found him guilty of the seven violations and imposed fines ($500–$1,000 per violation) and ordered the same fines to accrue per day for continued noncompliance beginning Jan. 15, 2013.
- Halstead’s appellate challenge focused on the sufficiency/specificity of the citations (Pa. R. Crim. P. 403) and on whether the fines were excessive; he did not contest evidentiary sufficiency for most violations on appeal.
- The appellate court (Pa. Cmwlth.) affirmed all convictions except for the Section 304.4 (structural members/exposed roof joists) violation, reversed that finding, and vacated the fines so the trial court could re-evaluate their severity with opportunity to take additional evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Halstead) | Defendant's Argument (Borough) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of citation form under Pa. R. Crim. P. 403 (fair notice) | Citations were vague/unspecific and failed to identify facts and locations (e.g., which of 100+ windows) | Citation referenced specific PMO sections and summarized facts (e.g., "glazing," "broken windows") giving fair notice | Citation content, taken as a whole, was sufficient to provide fair notice for most violations; Rule 109 prejudice standard applies |
| "Glazing"/windows citation (Section 304.13.1) — need definition or exact window locations | Term "glazing" undefined; citation did not specify which windows | PMO provides undefined terms get ordinary meanings; photographic evidence and citation language gave notice; owner could inspect property to identify offending windows | Affirmed: citation adequate to notify Halstead of glazing violations |
| Structural members / exposed roof joists (Section 304.4) — citation specificity | Citation only noted joists "exposed to exterior elements," failing to state joists were deteriorated or unable to support loads | Citation referenced Section 304.4 and alleged exposure that supported a claim of deterioration risk | Reversed: citation failed to adequately advise that joists were "free from deterioration" — exposure alone insufficient notice of the factual basis for a 304.4 violation |
| Fines & daily accruing penalties (Section 106.4) — excessive? | Daily fines (same total as initial fines repeated per day) produced an astronomic accrual (approx. $6,000/day); trial court failed to consider factors like property value, repair feasibility; sentence arguably excessive | PMO authorizes fines up to $1,000 and treats each day post-notice as separate offense; trial court relied on prior noncompliance and nature of offenses | Vacated fines and remanded: trial court must re-evaluate sentence (consider broader mitigating/aggravating factors and may take additional evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spontarelli, 791 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (standard of review and sufficiency of evidence framing in summary offense de novo reviews)
- Commonwealth v. Bordello, 696 A.2d 1215 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (citations must set forth essential elements to give fair notice; Rule 109 prejudice standard)
- Borough of Kennett Square v. Lal, 643 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (sentencing discretion in summary offense/property-maintenance cases; review for abuse and manifest excessiveness)
- Borough of Kennett Square v. Lai, 665 A.2d 15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (upholding fines where sentencing discretion properly exercised)
- Commonwealth v. Mouzon, 812 A.2d 617 (Pa. 2002) (discussion of "clearly unreasonable" standard under 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781 in appellate sentence review)