Commonwealth v. Rodriguez
172 A.3d 1162
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Appellant (Jayson Rodriguez) was charged in two consolidated cases: a 2014 hit-and-run/DUI incident where police searched his towed vehicle and found a handgun, and a 2015 warrant search of his residence that yielded heroin and paraphernalia.
- Appellant pled guilty (with counsel) to one firearm count (docket 4903-2014) and one PWID count (docket 1211-2015); other charges were withdrawn.
- While the criminal matters were pending or within the court’s 30-day post-disposition jurisdiction, Appellant filed pro se motions seeking return of seized property, later clarifying that $6,534.83 was withdrawn from his Wells Fargo account on February 17, 2015 (noted on the bank statement as “Liens, Levies, and Garnishments Case #14781915”).
- Appellant alleged the Commonwealth unlawfully seized those bank funds and sought their return under Pa.R.Crim.P. 588. He attached bank records and correspondence showing some funds were from a workers’ compensation payment.
- The trial court, relying on an informal, off-the-record inquiry with the District Attorney, dismissed the motion stating the Commonwealth had not seized the funds; no evidentiary hearing was held and no on-the-record proof was presented about who seized the funds or the referenced case number.
- The Superior Court vacated the dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, finding the trial court improperly substituted informal inquiry for the fact-finding duty required by Rule 588 when the Commonwealth’s possession or role is disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant is entitled to return of $6,534.83 under Pa.R.Crim.P. 588 | Bank statement shows the Commonwealth seized $6,534.83; no basis for forfeiture, so funds must be returned | Commonwealth (informally) asserted it did not possess/seize the funds | Trial court’s dismissal vacated; remand for evidentiary hearing to determine who seized/possesses the funds |
| Whether the trial court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing | Appellant argued he was entitled to a hearing to prove lawful possession and respond to Commonwealth | Trial court relied on informal off-the-record inquiry instead of a record hearing | Court held an evidentiary hearing is required when Commonwealth’s possession is disputed and remanded for one |
| Whether Appellant’s pro se motion was timely and properly filed while represented | Appellant filed motions during pendency and within 30 days after disposition, arguing timeliness under Allen | Trial court failed to forward pro se motion to counsel as required; no contest to timeliness asserted | Court recognized motions were timely under Rule 588 and procedural rules and proceeded to remand for merits hearing |
| Whether Appellant is entitled to counsel for forfeiture/return proceeding | Appellant proceeded pro se on appeal asserting right to relief | Commonwealth argued no entitlement to appointed counsel in forfeiture/return proceedings | Court noted there is no constitutional right to appointed counsel in such proceedings (citing authority) |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Durham, 9 A.3d 641 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard of review and burdens for Rule 588 return motions)
- Commonwealth v. Matsinger, 68 A.3d 390 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013) (requiring evidentiary hearing where Commonwealth’s possession is disputed)
- Commonwealth v. Gayle, 145 A.3d 188 (Pa. Super. 2016) (applying Matsinger principles to Rule 588 disputes)
- Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709 (Pa. 2014) (timeliness of return motions while trial court retains jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 700 A.2d 423 (Pa. 1997) (prisoner pro se filing deemed filed on prison mailbox date)