Commonwealth v. Null
186 A.3d 424
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Clifford Null was convicted in magisterial court for violating the Construction Code Act by performing work without permits; he appealed de novo to the Court of Common Pleas and was found guilty there with massive escalating daily fines totaling $267,268 across two dockets.
- This Court (Null I) vacated the sentence and remanded for reconsideration of whether the fines were excessive, instructing the trial court to consider additional evidence and enter a new order.
- On remand the trial judge ordered the parties to mediate the fine amount before another judge; mediation resulted in a $40,000 settlement order. The trial court then held Null and his counsel (Mitchell) in contempt for failing to comply with mediation-related directives.
- The Superior Court found the trial court lacked authority to order mediation (Rule 570 inapplicable) and held that contempt for failing to attend or comply with mediation was void because the mediation order exceeded the court’s mandate and authority.
- The Superior Court vacated the contempt judgments and the $40,000 order, rejected Null’s attempts to withdraw his de novo appeal after trial, rejected his Rule 704 sentencing-delay discharge claim (no demonstrated prejudice), and held the original trial judge should have recused per the Supreme Court assignment; remanded for further proceedings before a new judge to reassess excessive-fine and need for additional evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Null's Argument | Commonwealth/Trial Court's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could order mediation and hold parties in contempt for noncompliance | Order to mediate was authorized and enforceable; contempt valid | Trial court had inherent and rule-based authority (claimed Rule 570) to manage disposition | Mediation order exceeded remand and Rule 570 did not apply; mediation-based contempt vacated |
| Whether Null could withdraw his de novo appeal after trial to reinstate magisterial judgment | Rule 462(e) allows withdrawal at any time, even after de novo trial/sentencing, reinstating M.D.J. fines | Withdrawal right ends once de novo trial begins; allowing later withdrawal would permit unfair waste of resources | Withdrawal after trial/de novo is not permitted; Null cannot reinstate magisterial sentence post-trial |
| Whether trial court’s failure to resentence within 90 days after remand required discharge under Rule 704 | Delay (post-remand) voided subsequent fine orders; discharge required | Rule 704 delay entitles discharge only if defendant shows prejudice from delay | No automatic discharge; Null failed to prove prejudice, so Rule 704 claim denied |
| Whether trial judge’s partial recusal request meant he was precluded from all further proceedings | Assignment to another judge applied only to specific contempt hearing; judge could preside over other matters | Judge requested another judge to "try all proceedings"; Supreme Court assignment of Judge Creany covered the entire case | Trial judge should have been recused from further proceedings; further hearings must be before newly assigned judge |
Key Cases Cited
- Tick, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 246 A.2d 424 (Pa. 1968) (trial court must comply strictly with appellate mandate)
- Roviello v. Roviello, 323 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 1974) (orders entered without authority are unenforceable and noncompliance is not contempt)
- Fant v. Commonwealth, 146 A.3d 1254 (Pa. 2016) (interpretation principle: give terms ordinary meaning but consider surrounding context)
- Anders, 725 A.2d 170 (Pa. 1999) (delay in sentencing warrants discharge only if defendant shows prejudice)
- Martin, 97 A.3d 363 (Pa. Super. 2014) (bench trial begins when court begins to hear evidence)
- Agostinelli v. Edwards, 98 A.3d 695 (Pa. Super. 2014) (appellate-mandate compliance principles)
- Flanders v. Ford City Borough, 986 A.2d 964 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (purpose and penalty structure of the Construction Code Act)