Opinion
No. 1937 C.D. 2014
06-09-2015
Darrell Heath, Petitioner v. Philadelphia Clerk of Courts, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
Darrell Heath (Heath) appeals, pro se, from the September 29, 2014 Final Determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) dismissing his Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§67.101-67.3104.
On August 28, 2014, Heath mailed a RTKL request to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas and the County Clerk of Courts (Clerk) requesting his sentencing order. In response, the Clerk sent Heath documents from his criminal case file containing typewritten and handwritten notations. Specifically, these documents, among other things, state Heath's 1995 guilty verdict (one count of possessing an instrument of crime (PIC) and one count of first-degree murder); list the sentence that the trial court imposed on the convictions (two and a half to three years' imprisonment for the PIC conviction and a concurrent term of life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction); and contain the trial court's handwritten signature at the bottom of each sentence imposed. (Heath's original brief at Ex. A-D.)
On September 26, 2014, Heath filed an appeal to the OOR. By Final Determination dated September 29, 2014, the OOR determined that the Clerk is a "judicial agency" under the RTKL and concluded that a judicial agency is not subject to the jurisdiction of the OOR. Accordingly, the OOR dismissed Heath's appeal with prejudice. (Heath's amended brief at Appx.)
On appeal to this Court, Heath contends that the documents he received from the Clerk are not actually a sentencing order and that the Clerk should be ordered to disclose a legally valid sentencing order.
"This Court's standard of review of a final determination of the OOR is de novo and our scope of review is plenary." Hunsicker v. Pennsylvania State Police, 93 A.3d 911, 913 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
We note that the Clerk has not filed a brief in this appeal.
Initially, we agree with the OOR that the OOR did not have jurisdiction to decide an appeal from a judicial agency and that the OOR's dismissal with prejudice was proper. Frazier v. Philadelphia County Office of Prothonotary, 58 A.3d 858, 859-60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) ("The OOR does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals under the [RTKL] taken from determinations of a judicial agency of the Commonwealth. . . . Accordingly, the OOR correctly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's appeal, and dismissal was proper.").
Further, the RTKL defines a "judicial agency" as "[a] court of the Commonwealth or any other entity or office of the unified judicial system," section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.102, and the Clerk is an employee of a judicial agency. League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh v. Allegheny County, 819 A.2d 155, 158 n.12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) ("[C]lerks of court . . . are personnel of the unified judicial system.").
Under the RTKL, a judicial agency is only required to disclose "financial records." Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County v. Office of Open Records, 2 A.3d 810, 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) ("The RTKL limits the records that judicial agencies must disclose to financial records."). In section 102 of the RTKL, "financial records" are defined to include: (1) any account, voucher, or contract dealing with the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency or an agency's acquisition, use or disposal of services, supplies, materials, equipment, or property; (2) the salary or other payments or expenses paid to an officer or employee of an agency, including the name and title of the officer or employee; and (3) a financial audit report. 65 P.S. §67.102.
In Frazier, the petitioner requested a copy of an autopsy report from the Philadelphia County Office of the Prothonotary (Prothonotary) under the RTKL. The Prothonotary denied the petitioner's request, and the petitioner appealed to the OOR, which dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal to this Court, we noted that, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration, court prothonotaries "are personnel of the unified judicial system." Frazier, 58 A.3d at 859. After reiterating that a judicial agency is only obligated to disclose financial records, and determining that an autopsy report is not a financial record, we concluded that the Prothonotary could not be required to provide the petitioner with an autopsy report.
As in Frazier, the Clerk could not be compelled to provide Heath with a copy of his sentencing order. The Clerk is an official of a judicial agency, and a sentencing order is not a financial record under the RTKL. In his brief, Heath references Pa.R.Crim.P. 113(a). Although the Clerk is obligated to provide Heath with copies of orders in his criminal file pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 113(a), the RTKL is not the appropriate vehicle and the OOR is not the appropriate venue to compel the Clerk to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 113(a).
Even if we were to address Heath's arguments, we would conclude that they lack merit. Heath first asserts that the documents provided to him are not copies of his sentencing order because the documents are not in a typical order format and do not contain an official seal or a time stamp. Contrary to Heath's contentions, our Supreme Court has held that a handwritten sentence on a document signed by a trial judge and docketed in the criminal file is a sentencing order. Commonwealth v. Borrin, 80 A.3d 1219, 1222 and n.2 (Pa. 2013).
Heath's remaining arguments contest the legal validity of his incarceration absent a valid sentencing order. However, the RTKL is not a vehicle through which an individual can collaterally attack the legality of his criminal confinement. See Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394, 402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). There are other statelaw remedies for prisoners challenging sentences that are allegedly illegal. See Commonwealth v. Hall, 771 A.2d 1232, 1235 (Pa. 2001).
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2015, the September 29, 2014 Final Determination of the Office of Open Records is affirmed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge