From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Com. of Pa. v. Malin

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 25, 1978
392 A.2d 911 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1978)

Opinion

Argued April 3, 1978

October 25, 1978.

Ordinance — Appeal from District Justice — Appeal to wrong division of court of common pleas — Weeds — Sufficient evidence.

1. An appeal timely filed from a conviction by a district justice for violation of a weed ordinance but filed in the wrong division of the court of common pleas, should not be dismissed but should be transferred to the proper division. [289-90]

2. Charges of violation of an ordinance prohibiting the maintenance of certain denominated weeds or other weeds harmful to the health and welfare of the general public are properly dismissed when the court could properly find that evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of the denominated weeds or that the weeds present were harmful to the general public. [290]

Argued April 3, 1978, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., BLATT and DiSALLE, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 738 C.D. 1977, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael H. Malin, No. 4740-76.

Conviction of township ordinance violation appealed by defendant to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. Motion to strike appeal denied. Motion to dismiss sustained. Township appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Marc B. Davis, with him Pearlstine, Salkin, Hardiman Robinson, for appellant.

Michael H. Malin, with him Ronald J. Restrepo, for appellee.


Michael Malin was charged with violating the Hatfield Township Weed Ordinance, Hatfield Township, Pa., Ordinance 254.1 (September 9, 1971). The ordinance prohibits a property owner from allowing certain named weeds or any weed that would be harmful to the health and welfare of the general public to reach a height in excess of ten inches.

A District Justice found Malin guilty and fined him $61.00. He appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division. The Prosecutor filed a Petition and Rule to Strike the Appeal on the grounds that it should have been filed with the Civil Division. The Trial Court dismissed that motion, and at the close of the Prosecutor's case in chief, sustained Malin's Motion to Dismiss. The Township has appealed to this Court.

In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Carter, 36 Pa. Commw. 569, 389 A.2d 241 (1978), we held that the lower court should not have stricken an appeal timely filed in the wrong division of the Court of Common Pleas, but should simply have transferred the appeal to the appropriate docket. Carter clearly controls here. Therefore, the trial court correctly refused to strike Malin's appeal.

Concerning the granting of Malin's motion to dismiss, we find that the trial court could reasonably have found that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Prosecutor, failed to show either that any of the enumerated weeds existed on Malin's property or that those weeds present were detrimental to the general public. The court did not err in sustaining Malin's motion to dismiss.

We affirm.

PER CURIAM ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of October, 1978, the May 20, 1977 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County is affirmed.


Summaries of

Com. of Pa. v. Malin

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 25, 1978
392 A.2d 911 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1978)
Case details for

Com. of Pa. v. Malin

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Michael H. Malin, 2235 Line Lexington…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 25, 1978

Citations

392 A.2d 911 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1978)
392 A.2d 911