In Re: Brown, A.
976 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 19, 2017Background
- Alton Brown (incarcerated) filed a private criminal complaint with the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG) in 2014; OAG returned it as improperly filed in Aug–Sept 2015.
- Brown petitioned the Dauphin County Court for review; the court denied the petition on Oct 8, 2015. Brown filed a notice of appeal late; the Superior Court quashed the appeal on Jan 11, 2016 and advised he could seek leave to appeal nunc pro tunc from the trial court.
- Brown filed a petition for leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc; the trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 28, 2016 and mailed the order on April 15, 2016.
- Brown did not appear at the hearing (claiming late notice and health problems); the sheriff reported Brown refused transport. The trial court denied the petition on May 16, 2016, concluding Brown abandoned the petition by refusing to attend.
- Brown appealed pro se, arguing the court abused its discretion by not rescheduling the hearing, by providing inadequate Rule 1925(a) support, and by denying nunc pro tunc relief. The Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/Trial Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by not rescheduling evidentiary hearing | Brown said he got short notice (received order 4/25) and could not attend; asked for rescheduling or video | Court mailed order two weeks prior (4/15); Brown refused transport and abandoned petition | Trial court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether alleged late notice amounted to a breakdown in court process excusing nonappearance | Brown argued delay by prison/USPS prevented timely notice and ability to request video participation | Court held mailing on 4/15 showed no court-caused breakdown; delays attributable to mail/prison not court error | No breakdown; excuse rejected |
| Whether Brown’s health (prostate cancer) excused his failure to appear | Brown claimed illness made attendance impossible and warranted ADA consideration | Record lacked medical proof; hearing testimony showed he was housed in restricted unit for misconduct, not infirmary | Health claim unsupported; court properly required attendance |
| Whether denial of nunc pro tunc relief was error | Brown sought relief because his original appeal was quashed as untimely | Relief requires non-negligent reason for delay, prompt filing, and no prejudice; Brown abandoned petition by not attending hearing | Denial affirmed; trial court did not abuse discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Yohe v. Yohe, 641 A.2d 1210 (Pa. Super. 1994) (standard for review of nunc pro tunc allowance)
- Woodward v. Commonwealth, 129 A.3d 480 (Pa. 2015) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Criss v. Wise, 781 A.2d 1156 (Pa. 2001) (three-factor test for nunc pro tunc appeals)
- Dixon v. Commonwealth, 66 A.3d 794 (Pa. Super. 2013) (failure to follow court directives and nonappearance may justify dismissal)
- Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514 (Pa. 2013) (noting appellant’s history of frequent frivolous filings)