In Re: Theodore J. Davenport
In Re: Theodore J. Davenport No. 766 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 10, 2017Background
- In 2011 Theodore J. Davenport pled guilty to two counts of robbery and received concurrent mandatory sentences of 120–240 months; post-conviction relief efforts failed.
- In November 2015 Davenport filed four private criminal complaints alleging police officers forged Magisterial District Judge George Zozos’s signature on arrest/charging documents and listing multiple offenses (forgery, conspiracy, perjury, official oppression, etc.).
- The Dauphin County District Attorney asked Detective John Goshert to investigate; Goshert interviewed Davenport, the two named detectives, and Judge Zozos.
- Judge Zozos examined the documents and stated the markings were his signature (he explained he signs many documents and sometimes signs sloppily).
- The District Attorney disapproved the private complaints by letter (March 15, 2016), concluding the investigation produced no evidence of forgery or other criminal wrongdoing.
- Davenport petitioned the trial court for review; the trial court conducted de novo review, affirmed the DA’s disapproval, and this appeal followed (affirmed by Superior Court).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DA’s investigation was inadequate | Davenport: DA failed to investigate (did not ID two female officers, did not confirm judge’s duty status, did not independently verify signature) | DA: Investigated via Detective Goshert, interviewed parties and judge; evidence refuted forgery | Held: DA’s investigation was adequate; trial court properly relied on detective’s work |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of forgery/signing by officers | Davenport: Signature looked like initials and accompanying statements show intent to forge | DA: Judge identified signature as his; officers denied forging; no evidence other than belief | Held: Insufficient evidence to establish elements of alleged crimes; DA properly disapproved on legal grounds |
| Whether denial violated due process | Davenport: Failure to recognize forgery denied him due process | DA/Trial Ct: Decision was a legal determination based on investigation; no deprivation shown | Held: No due process violation; de novo legal review supports DA’s decision |
| Whether use of initials (vs full signature) voids charging documents | Davenport: Even if judge made initials, initials are improper and void complaints | DA/Trial Ct: Judge identified markings as his signature; judge best positioned to identify his own signature | Held: Claim rejected; judge’s identification controls; no basis to void complaints |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005) (distinguishes de novo review when DA disapproves on legal grounds from abuse-of-discretion review when policy considerations predominate)
- In re Private Complaint of Adams, 764 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2000) (private complaint must set forth prima facie case but DA need not pursue complaints unsupported by factual averments)
- Commonwealth v. Muroski, 506 A.2d 1312 (Pa. Super. 1986) (DA must investigate private complaint, but investigation unnecessary when allegations lack factual support)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Guarrasi v. Carroll, 979 A.2d 383 (Pa. Super. 2009) (DA’s disapproval for lack of evidence is a legal conclusion subject to de novo review)
- In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 2010) (appellate review of trial court’s de novo review of DA’s disapproval)