170 A.3d 530
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Donald Miles filed handwritten private criminal complaints alleging multiple crimes (perjury, false swearing, false reports, unsworn falsification, official oppression, conspiracy) against county detectives, prosecutors, judges, and others related to a pending criminal matter.
- The Lackawanna County D.A.’s Office, recognizing conflicts, referred Miles’s complaints to the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General (OAG).
- The OAG declined to approve the private criminal complaints, explaining they failed to articulate or produce evidence of criminal conduct and appeared aimed at delaying Miles’s pending criminal case.
- Miles prematurely filed a petition for review in county court (November 8, 2016) and later challenged the OAG’s disapproval as a due process violation and untimely action.
- The trial court reviewed the OAG’s decision de novo (concluding the disapproval was based on substantive legal insufficiency), found the complaints lacked factual averments establishing prima facie criminal conduct, and denied Miles’s petition.
- Miles appealed pro se; the Superior Court affirmed, agreeing Miles failed to plead facts sufficient to support the crimes alleged and that no evidentiary hearing was required under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miles was denied due process by referral to and disapproval by the OAG and by alleged untimely notice | Miles: referral/disapproval deprived him of fair opportunity and timely notice to file a proper Rule 506(B)(2) petition | DA/OAG/Trial Ct: referral for conflict was proper; OAG timely closed the matter and gave reasons; Miles had no right to additional notice or to force approval | Court: No due process violation; referral appropriate; OAG legitimately disapproved for substantive insufficiency |
| Whether Miles was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on review of disapproval | Miles: should be allowed to present/defend his allegations in court | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: Rule 506 does not guarantee an evidentiary hearing; review is limited | Court: No evidentiary hearing required under Rule 506; review may be on the record and pleadings |
| Whether the private criminal complaints met the prima facie factual sufficiency required to proceed | Miles: allegations (and selected transcript excerpts) support charges | Commonwealth/OAG/Trial Ct: complaints are conclusory, factually incoherent, and lack averments necessary to establish elements | Court: Complaints are fatally defective; do not plead prima facie criminal conduct — disapproval affirmed |
| Proper standard of review for disapproval (legal vs. policy grounds) | Miles: trial court erred by how it reviewed OAG action and timing | Commonwealth/Trial Ct: rejection was on substantive legal grounds (lack of factual support), so de novo review by trial court was appropriate | Court: Applied de novo review (since disapproval was for lack of factual support) and affirmed denial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (explains standards for prosecutorial disapproval of private criminal complaints and appropriate review)
- In re Private Criminal Complaint of Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc) (distinguishes de novo review for legal insufficiency from deferential review for policy-based disapproval)
- In re Private Complaint of Adams, 764 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2000) (discusses prosecutor’s obligation to investigate properly pled private complaints)
- Commonwealth v. Muroski, 506 A.2d 1312 (Pa. Super. 1986) (private complaints unsupported by factual averments need not be investigated)
- Braman v. Corbett, 19 A.3d 1151 (Pa. Super. 2011) (private complainant has no right to an evidentiary hearing under Rule 506)