Commonwealth v. Richards
128 A.3d 786
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Richards was arrested for DUI (controlled substance) and filed a motion to suppress in Philadelphia Municipal Court; the municipal court granted suppression on November 18, 2013.
- The Commonwealth timely filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (within 30 days).
- Before the Common Pleas heard the petition, the Commonwealth withdrew (nolle prossed) the charges in Municipal Court at a December 27, 2013 status hearing.
- The Common Pleas heard the petition on April 30, 2014; Richards argued the petition was moot due to the prior nolle prosequi; the trial court dismissed the petition as moot.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the municipal court lost jurisdiction after the certiorari was filed because Pa.R.A.P. 1701 divested it of authority, rendering the nolle a legal nullity.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure (in particular Rule 1701) applied to a Court of Common Pleas sitting on certiorari and whether the municipal nolle was therefore void.
Issues
| Issue | Commonwealth's Argument | Richards' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a municipal-court nolle prosequi after the Commonwealth filed a certiorari to Common Pleas is a legal nullity because Pa.R.A.P. 1701 divested municipal court jurisdiction | Pa.R.A.P. 1701 divests the municipal court of jurisdiction once the appeal/petition is filed, so the subsequent nolle is void | Rules of Appellate Procedure do not govern Courts of Common Pleas sitting on certiorari; thus the municipal court retained power and the nolle was effective | The Rules of Appellate Procedure do not govern Courts of Common Pleas acting as appellate tribunals unless adopted; Rule 1701 did not divest municipal court jurisdiction, so the petition was moot and dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the Commonwealth’s appeal to Common Pleas was timely despite a conflicting local Philadelphia rule limiting appeal time to 15 days | The local Philadelphia rule (630(J)) was valid and might limit appeal time | Pa.R.Crim.P. 1005(C) governs and gives 30 days; local rule is void to the extent it conflicts | Pa.R.Crim.P. 1005(C) controls; the Commonwealth’s certiorari was timely (local rule 630(J) is void) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for legal questions)
- Commonwealth v. Reyes, 611 A.2d 190 (Pa. 1992) (local rules cannot conflict with general rules of the Supreme Court)
- Commonwealth v. Coleman, 19 A.3d 1111 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Common Pleas sits as an appellate court on municipal certiorari)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Kisner, 746 A.2d 661 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000) (Pa.R.A.P. 103 excludes Courts of Common Pleas unless they adopt the Rules)
- Commonwealth v. Charles, 411 A.2d 527 (Pa. Super. 1979) (statutory construction principles; expressio unius maxim)
- Official Court Reporters of Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia Cnty. v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Bd., 467 A.2d 311 (Pa. 1983) (noting Pa.R.A.P. apply to appellate courts named in Rule 103)
- Trombetta v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 907 A.2d 550 (Pa. Super. 2006) (Common Pleas’ appellate function when reviewing an arbitration award)