In Re: Brown, A.
1394 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 12, 2017Background
- Alton Brown, an inmate, filed a private criminal complaint in 2014 alleging misconduct by SCI-Greene employees and Greene County officials. The complaint was submitted to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office.
- The Attorney General’s Office informed Brown it lacked jurisdiction over private criminal complaints. Brown did not submit the complaint to the appropriate district attorney.
- In February 2016 Brown petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County for review of the denial rather than forwarding the complaint to the Greene County District Attorney as required by Rule 506.
- The trial court twice addressed Brown’s filings: it initially rejected deficient paperwork, accepted an amended petition, then directed the Commonwealth to respond; the Commonwealth reiterated that Brown had not followed Rule 506.
- The trial court denied Brown’s motion to strike the Commonwealth’s response and dismissed his amended petition for review on June 21, 2016. Brown appealed pro se, raising Rule 1925(b) and due process arguments.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding Brown failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 506 (he never submitted the complaint to the district attorney), so there was nothing for the trial court to review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by finding Brown's Rule 1925(b) statement too vague | Brown contended the court’s statements were inadequate and his filings were sufficient | The Commonwealth and trial court maintained procedural defects and noncompliance with rules | Court declined to reach merits because procedural noncompliance (Rule 506) deprived the court of jurisdiction to review the complaint |
| Whether the trial court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion prejudiced appellate review | Brown argued the court failed to provide a meaningful opinion hindering appeal | Trial court provided opinions and ultimately addressed the procedural defects | Superior Court found no prejudice because the dismissal rested on Brown's failure to follow Rule 506 |
| Whether trial court conduct denied due process (including allowing a non-party to argue opposition) | Brown alleged due process violations and that his issues were ignored | Trial court and Commonwealth pointed to Brown’s procedural failures and need to follow established rules | Court held Brown’s pro se status does not excuse noncompliance; no reversible due process error given procedural basis for dismissal |
| Whether the petition should have been reviewed on the merits despite procedural defects | Brown sought substantive review of his allegations | Commonwealth argued review required prior submission to district attorney per Rule 506 | Court held Rule 506 noncompliance foreclosed merits review; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76 (Pa. Super. 1998) (appellate review of private criminal complaint denial is limited to propriety of trial court action and depends on district attorney's stated reasons)
- Wilkins v. Marsico, 903 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2006) (pro se litigants are bound by procedural rules; liberal construction does not excuse noncompliance)
- Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa. Super. 2011) (prisoner mailbox rule: pro se prisoner filings are deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities for mailing)
- In re Brown, 131 A.3d 100 (Pa. Super. 2015) (prior filing by Brown demonstrating his awareness of correct procedures)