Opinion
J-A05022-19 No. 1275 WDA 2018
05-14-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TIMOTHY SENNETT, ESQUIRE APPEAL OF: LOUIS J. ALIOTA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered August 1, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-MD-0000385-2018 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and MURRAY, J. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.:
Louis J. Aliota ("Appellant") appeals from the August 1, 2018 order denying reconsideration of his request for judicial approval of a private criminal complaint. We affirm.
Appellant is a Millcreek Township School Board Director. He filed a private criminal complaint, on his behalf "as well as taxpayers and voters of Millcreek Township," against Timothy Sennett, Esq. ("Sennett"), the Solicitor of Millcreek Township School District and School Board ("School Board"), and Sennett's law firm, Knox Law Firm. Private Criminal Complaint; Appellant's Brief at 6 and 6 n.1. In the complaint, Appellant averred that Sennett and Knox Law Firm should be prosecuted for election law violations and asserted that they established a political action committee ("LPAC") that contributed to candidates other than Appellant, who served on the School Board. In addition, Appellant alleged that Sennett's invitation to Appellant and other political officials to the annual Erie Club Summer Picnic violated state campaign laws and demonstrated a conflict of interest.
While the record is unclear regarding the date Appellant filed the complaint, Appellant asserts it was on February 20, 2018. Appellant's Brief at 6.
On December 21, 2018, Sennett filed a letter stating that he will rely upon the brief filed by the Commonwealth and the decision of the trial court. Sennett Letter to the Prothonotary of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, dated 12/21/18 and received 12/24/18, at 1.
Appellee, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Erie County District Attorney ("the Commonwealth"), disapproved Appellant's private criminal complaint on the basis that it lacked prosecutorial merit. Letter from Erie County District Attorney to Pennsylvania Attorney General, 4/18/18, at 1. By letter dated May 4, 2018, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General declined to accept jurisdiction, stating that "the circumstances in each of these matters do not rise to the level of a conflict under the law." Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General Letter, 5/4/18, at 1.
Thereafter, Appellant filed a Petition for Approval of Private Criminal Complaint in the Erie County Common Pleas Court on June 21, 2018. While Appellant avers in his brief that the trial court held a hearing on June 21, 2018, instead, on that date in motions court, Appellant presented his petition to the Honorable Daniel J. Brabender, who recused. In the course of judicial assignments by the Erie County Court Administrator, the matter was referred to Judge William R. Cunningham. Judge Cunningham, the trial court herein, entered an order on July 17, 2018, finding "no basis for any criminal charge against [Sennett]." Order, 7/17/18.
By motion dated July 31, 2018, and filed August 1, 2018, Appellant sought reconsideration of the denial of his private criminal complaint, and the trial court denied reconsideration that same day. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on August 31, 2018. Both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant raises the following issues on appeal:
A. Whether the lower court abused its discretion in sustaining [the Commonwealth's] denial of a criminal complaint?Appellant's Brief at 5 (full capitalization omitted).
B. Whether the lower court abused its discretion and committed an error of law in concluding that the Appellant's complaint lacked sufficient facts to state a violation of the statute?
In addressing a district attorney's refusal to prosecute a private criminal complaint, our Court has consistently held that a determination that a private criminal complaint "lacks prosecutorial merit" is a policy determination. In re Private Complaint of Adams , 764 A.2d 577, 581 (Pa. Super. 2000). When a district attorney's denial of a private criminal complaint is based wholly on policy considerations, the trial court must defer to the prosecutor's discretion absent a gross abuse of that discretion. In re Wilson , 879 A.2d 199, 215 (Pa. Super. 2005). An appellate court will review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, in keeping with settled principles of appellate review of discretionary matters. Commonwealth v. Michaliga , 947 A.2d 786, 791-792 (Pa. Super. 2008).
Further, a district attorney's decision not to prosecute a criminal complaint for policy reasons carries a presumption of good faith and soundness. Michaliga , 947 A.2d at 791-792 (quoting Commonwealth v. Heckman , 928 A.2d 1077, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2007)). The complainant, herein Appellant, "must create a record that demonstrates the contrary." Michaliga , at 792. Thus, our scope of review in policy-declination cases:
is limited to whether the trial court misapprehended or misinterpreted the district attorney's decision and/or, without a legitimate basis in the record, substituted its judgment for that of the district attorney. We will not disturb the trial court's decision unless the record contains no reasonable grounds for the court's decision, or the court relied on rules of law that were palpably wrong or inapplicable. Otherwise, the trial court's decision must stand, even if the appellate court would be inclined to decide the case differently.Michaliga , 947 A.2d at 792. Both the District Attorney and the trial court have a responsibility to prevent the misuse of judicial and prosecutorial resources in the pursuit of futile prosecutions. Commonwealth v. Muroski , 506 A.2d 131, 137 (Pa. Super. 1986).
In his first issue, despite multiple pages at the start of his argument in his brief wherein he provides quotations regarding standards of review, Appellant's actual contention encompasses a few generalized claims for which he cites no legal authority or record support. Appellant's Brief at 16-21. Appellant contends that the Commonwealth was merely unwilling to investigate Sennett, id. at 21, and he avers that the Erie County District Attorney was biased. Id. at 22. Appellant suggests that "[t]here is a record of bias and unwillingness to investigate [Sennett,] a long-time solicitor." Id. Appellant baldly posits that the "decision was arbitrary since [the trial court] failed to appreciate the record before it." Id. (emphasis added). Appellant fails to identify evidence in the record supporting either bias or arbitrariness.
In his second issue, once again, Appellant advances broad assertions of bias without explanation or support. The basis for his argument of conflict of interest is that Sennett violated campaign finance laws by inviting political "figures" to a barbecue that others had to pay to attend, Appellant's Brief at 27, and that Sennett's LPAC made contributions to campaigns. Id. Appellant avers that when these facts were taken to the district attorney, he failed to "take measures to investigate the salient issues" and determine whether "recipients of the donations disclosed such monies from a political figure." Id. at 27-28. Appellant posits that Sennett also violated the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 1101-1113, which he asserts, without explanation, must be read in pari materia with the Election Code. Appellant's Brief at 29. Appellant complains that he was never given the opportunity to present evidence at a hearing. Id. at 30.
The Commonwealth responds that although Appellant opines that it disapproved the private criminal complaint because it determined that insufficient evidence existed in the case, in addition to the absence of prosecutorial merit, the Assistant District Attorney noted only that the complaint "lacked prosecutorial merit." Commonwealth's Brief at 2 n.2. The Commonwealth maintains that under Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, a private complainant has no right to an evidentiary hearing in connection with the trial court's review of the District Attorney's decision to disapprove a private criminal complaint. Commonwealth's Brief at 3 (citing Commonwealth v. Eisemann , 419 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 1980)). Rather, the Commonwealth avers, Rule 506 merely allows the private criminal complainant the opportunity to have his complaint reviewed in the court of common pleas, following the District Attorney's adverse decision. Commonwealth's Brief at 3.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, Approval of Private Complaints, provides as follows:
(A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without unreasonable delay.
(B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth:
(1) approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this decision on the complaint form and transmit it to the issuing authority;
(2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision.
Appellant makes generalized claims of bias and unwillingness to investigate by the District Attorney but provides no record support. Following our review of the complete record, the law, and the parties' arguments, we conclude that the trial court opinion supports the determination that Appellant's private criminal complaint does not comply with "the essential requirements" set forth in Pa.R.Crim.P. 504. We rely on the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion filed on October 2, 2018, in affirming the August 1, 2018 order. We direct the parties to attach the opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/14/2019
Image materials not available for display.