Commonwealth v. Matsinger
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 216
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Matsinger, pro se, sought return of a television seized in a July 20, 2009 Philadelphia search warrant related to alleged theft.
- Television reportedly returned to the store by a detective within a month; charges against Matsinger were later dismissed in February 2010.
- In February 2011, the trial court ordered expungement of Matsinger’s arrest record and directed PD to destroy or deliver property related to the arrest.
- Matsinger filed a Rule 588 petition on November 5, 2010 seeking return of the television; Commonwealth claimed mootness as it no longer possessed the TV.
- Trial court, on January 11, 2012, dismissed the petition without a hearing; Matsinger appealed.
- This Court later remanded for nunc pro tunc determination of appellate timeliness and, after an order in September 2012, directed Matsinger to file a Rule 1925(b) statement within 21 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver under Rule 1925(b) | Matsinger substantially complied with the court’s order despite minor defects. | Failure to strictly serve and file a 1925(b) statement warrants waiver of issues. | Waiver did not apply; substantial compliance controls. |
| Mootness and need for an evidentiary hearing | The petition should be decided on the merits; the TV may still be possessed by Commonwealth. | Without possession, the petition is moot and should be dismissed. | Remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine possession; if possessed, merits proceed; if not, dispute moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 607 Pa. 341 (Pa. 2010) (inconsistent 1925(b) order may still permit waiver noncompliance due to substantial compliance)
- One 1978 Lincoln, 52 Pa.Cmwlth. 353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (mootness when necessary property is no longer in possession)
- Commonwealth v. Howard, 931 A.2d 129 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (hearing required to resolve disputed facts in return-of-property motions)
- United States v. Albinson, 356 F.3d 278 (3d Cir. 2004) (evidentiary hearing aids determine status of seized property)
- United States v. Chambers, 192 F.3d 374 (3d Cir. 1999) (government must prove possession or ownership in Rule 41(g) context)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 931 A.2d 781 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (burden shifting to resist return of property after entitlement shown)