Commonwealth v. Proetto
837 A.2d 1163
Pa.
2003
Check Treatment

*1 511 Pеterson, (Pa.Super.2000), and Commonwealth v. (Pa.Super.2000), hereby expressly disapрroved. are judgment below is vacated and underlying PCRA petition is dismissed time-barred. NIGRO files a opinion. SAYLOR concurs the result. concurring. NIGRO

In light of the requirements, PCRA’s strict time and this Court’s law holding requirements case ‍‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍those are not subject equitable principles, I am constrained to result by majority. reached

837A.2d1163 Pennsylvania, Appellee, COMMONWEALTH of PROETTO, Appellant. Robert D.

Argued Oct.

DecidedDec. 2003. Lonardo,

Tommaso V. for Robert D. Proetto. Margaret Snow, Malik, Bowen Dean Hafeez Diane ‍‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍E. Gib- bons, Doylestown, for Com. Deutchman, Philadеlphia, Mary Benefield

Leonard Saul Attorneys PA Seiverling, Attorney District General Assоc. *2 NEWMAN, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, CAPPY,

Before SAYLOR, LAMB, EAKIN and JJ.

PER CURIAM. December, 2003, of this 4th of the affirmed on basis of Superior hereby the the Proetto, Superior opinion, (Pa.Super.2001). participate did not Former ZAPPALA ‍‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍Chief Justice of case. statement, by joined a files NEWMAN CASTILLE, joins who also Chief Justice CAPPY рer curiam order. the NEWMAN, Concurring. separately jurisprudence.

I write to discuss a matter a Order the today The Court enters Per Curiam in this the matter on determination of the published at Common- basis (Pa.Super.2001). wealth v. rejected five claims that Proetto raised before

tribunal err, it

I. Did court when admitted evidence the [trial] priоr without court seized the Commonwealth private chat communications? сonsisting of Internet err, impose it to II. Did ‍‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍when failed [trial] on a to conducted protection constitutional communication through telephone to сomputer connected the Internet lines? that, err, failing to [sic]

III. Did in rule [trial]court chat communications vio- interceptions private computer Pеnnsylvania Wiretap prior late the when without done authorization? err, in failing suppress

IV. Did the ftrial]court to alleged Appellant? statements err, finding [trial]cоurt V. Did the ‍‌‌​​​​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‍in evidence was a sufficient as matter of law convict Appellаnt a doubt? reasonable However,

Id. at 827-828. limited our grant Petition Appeal following Allowance two issues I. and Superior [trial Whether erred in Court] failing to supрress certain communications obtained viola- Wiretapping and Eleсtronic Sur- Act. II. Whether the court and Court] erred failing to suppress certain communications in viola- obtained *3 Pennsylva- the United States Constitution and/or nia Constitution. (2002) 667,

Commonwealth v. Pa. 790 A.2d 988 (Per Order). Curiam

In v. Tilghman, 543 Pa. 673 A.2d 898 (1996), explained this Court that a Per affirm- Curiam Order ing the of a decision trial or one of our intermediate appellate “signifies agreement courts this Court’s ... with disposition [that] tribunal’s final appeal on matter us.” Id. at 904. “In the instance where this intends only not affirm the result of court or intermediate appellate but аlso the used court] rationale [trial court or reaching intermediate аppellate court] decision, appropriate we would entеr the order on opinion the basis of the of the [trial court or intermediatе court], appellate elucidating ... [employed by rationale or аppellate trial court intermediate where neces- court] sary аdded). or desirable.” Id. (emphasis entry “Our of an order of per mriam ... opinion аffirmance on the basis of thus, [of the trial or appellate court], intermеdiate means agree with the ... employed [by rationale the trial reaсhing its final appellate court] court or intermediate added). (emphаsis Id. disposition.” my colleagues Opinion with that the of the agree I reasonеd, sound, I fear that thorough, well and but erroneously today as may and bar read our decision bench on entire stamp our placing jurisdiction took which is our because we Therefore, above. I would have cognizance the issues listed Opinion of the on basis of the affirmed suppression in Court discusses insofar and Pennsylvania Wiretapping Electronic Sur- contexts 5701-5782, §§ the Unit- Pa.C.S. Constitutions. ed States Justice CAPPY and Justice CASTILLE Chief Concurring Statement. Pennsylvania, Appellant,

COMMONWEALTH PHILLIPS, Jr., Appellee. L. Walter Nov. Submitted *4 Dec. Decided PER CURIAM: December, 16th County is AF-

the Court of Common Pleas Mercer