IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alton D. Brown, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 294 M.D. 2017

: Submitted: November 16, 2018

PA Commission on Crime :

and Delinquency, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE BROBSON FILED: March 19, 2019

Before this Court is the Petition for Review (Petition) filed by Alton D. 

Brown (Brown), which invokes this Court’s original and appellate jurisdictions. In 

our appellate jurisdiction, Brown petitions for review of a determination of the 

Office of Victims’ Services for the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and 

Delinquency (Commission), which Brown contends denied his claim for 

compensation under the Crime Victims Act (Act).

1

 In our original jurisdiction, 

Brown alleges that the Commission’s actions in handling his compensation claim 

violated his due process and equal protection rights. For the reasons set forth below, 

we dismiss Brown’s appellate jurisdiction claims as premature, remand the appellate 

 

1 Act of November 24, 1998, P.L. 882, as amended, 18 P.S. §§ 11.101-.5102.
2

jurisdiction matter to the Commission for the issuance of a final determination in 

accordance with Section 704 of the Act,

2

and dismiss Brown’s original jurisdiction 

claims as moot. 

In September 2014, Brown, an inmate at State Correctional 

Institution-Greene, filed a claim with the Commission, seeking compensation under 

the Act for certain expenses that he incurred as the victim of an alleged crime. 

(Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 1.) Brown alleged that he was the victim of an 

“ongoing widespread retaliatory campaign” by the Pennsylvania Department of 

Corrections (Department) since at least 2006 due to his “litigious and iconoclastic 

behavior” and, as a result thereof, has been subjected to “physical/psychological 

abuse/torture, denial of medical care for serious illnesses, intentional aggravation of 

serious chronic illnesses, intentional interference with effort to fight convictions, 

destruction/confiscation of property,” mail confiscation, and untreated broken 

bones. (Id.) Brown sought compensation for future medical expenses for treatment 

from an outside medical provider not associated with the Department, future 

counseling expenses for treatment from an unbiased professional, loss of earnings, 

and expenses for crime scene cleanup—i.e., his “damaged body[,] which needs to 

be cleaned as much as possible by the appropriate professionals.” (Id.)

By letter dated October 5, 2015, the Commission acknowledged receipt 

of Brown’s claim and advised Brown that the Commission had begun to process his 

claim. (C.R., Item No. 2.) More specifically, the Commission’s October 5, 2015

letter provided, in relevant part:

The Victims Compensation Assistance Program 

[(Program)] received the claim form you filed requesting 

victim’s compensation assistance. This letter does not 

 

2

18 P.S. § 11.704. 
3

mean your claim is approved for payment but only that we 

have begun to process it. You will need to provide the 

items listed on the checklist so we can begin to process 

your claim. If no checklist is attached, no additional 

information is needed at this time. . . .

(Id.) Attached to the Commission’s October 5, 2015 letter was a checklist, which 

provided, in pertinent part:

The following information is needed to process your 

claim:

1. According to documentation submitted to 

the Program, you are seeking reimbursement 

for lost wages. The Program requires that 

you be employed at the time of the crime and 

you are having taxes withheld in order to 

consider compensation for loss [sic] 

earnings. You indicated on your claim form 

that your employer at the time is not 

applicable. Therefore you are ineligible for 

loss of earnings compensation. 

2. According to the documentation 

submitted, you are requesting reimbursement 

for crime-scene cleanup. This benefit is 

intended to compensate for the reasonable 

and necessary costs for cleaning a private 

residential crime scene. Cleaning means to 

remove or attempt to remove blood or bodily 

fluid stains caused by the crime or other dirt 

and debris caused by the processing of the 

crime scene or stains from food, paint or 

other materials used to deface property 

within a private residence. Therefore, you 

are ineligible for crime scene cleanup 

compensation. 

3. You indicated on your form that you are a 

victim of ongoing retaliation by staff. The 

following policy is being provided to you: 

Any inmate who is the victim of abuse should 

report the abuse in the following manner by 

filing a grievance in accordance with 

Department policy DC-ADM 804, “Inmate 
4

Grievance System;” or by reporting it in 

writing to the Department’s Office of Special 

Investigations and Intelligence (OSII). We 

are unable to consider your request because 

[sic] is not an eligible expense under our 

Program.

(Id. (emphasis in original).) Brown responded to the Commission’s 

October 5, 2015 letter on March 8, 2016, advising the Commission that prison staff 

had confiscated his files and requesting that the Commission send him copies of its

file. (C.R., Item No. 3.) On August 10, 2016, Brown again responded to the 

Commission’s October 5, 2015 letter, inter alia, advising the Commission that he 

had “submitted a very large amount of prison grievances and complaints with OSII 

during the course of the retaliatory attacks upon [him],” refuting the Commission’s 

statements that he is not entitled to certain compensation under the Act, and 

providing further detail of the alleged injuries that he has sustained as a result of the 

Department’s actions and/or inactions. (C.R., Item No. 5.) By letter dated 

August 23, 2016, the Commission advised Brown as follows:

[The Commission] received your letter dated 

August 10th, 2016. You have requested that the 

[P]rogram assist you with arranging medical treatment and 

counseling outside of the [Department]. You have also 

requested assistance in obtaining documents that you do 

not have access to. The [P]rogram is not able to make 

these arrangements as these are not services that the 

[P]rogram offers. The [P]rogram can assist with medical 

bills and counseling bills after the services have been 

provided and billed. The [P]rogram does not coordinate 

care or make arrangements for these services. If you feel 

that you are being denied reasonable medical care, 

counseling, or denial of your documents and property, 

[y]ou should contact your attorney and file a civil suit. 

You may also want to contact your State Legislator and 

make them [sic] aware of your concerns. 
5

(C.R., Item No. 6.) Brown appealed to this Court from the Commission’s 

August 23, 2016 letter. 

On appeal,3 Brown argues that the Commission committed an error of 

law by: (1) failing to provide him with the opportunity to appeal the Commission’s 

August 23, 2016 letter, which Brown characterizes as the Commission’s initial 

denial of his claim for compensation, and failing to provide him with the opportunity 

for a hearing; (2) excluding prisoners from the victim compensation process 

established by the Act and/or requiring that prisoners meet additional conditions not 

required by the Act to be entitled to compensation; and (3) concluding that Brown 

was not entitled to compensation under the Act. In response, the Commission argues 

that it properly determined that Brown was not eligible for compensation under the 

Act. 

An individual eligible for compensation under the Act, including a 

direct victim of a crime, may file a claim for compensation with the Commission. 

See Sections 701 and 702 of the Act.4 The Commission is required to review the 

claim and supporting documentation and then investigate the claim to determine its 

validity. Section 704(b) of the Act. The Commission’s investigation should include 

“an examination of police, court and official records and reports concerning the 

crime and an examination of medical and hospital reports relating to the injury upon 

which the claim is based.” Id. Following its investigation, the Commission is 

required to make a determination regarding whether to grant an award or deny the 

 

3 This Court’s standard of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights 

were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are 

supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 

2 Pa. C.S. § 704.

4

18 P.S. §§ 11.701-.702.
6

claim. Section 704(c) of the Act. “If the [Commission] is unable to determine if a 

claim is justified based upon the supporting documents, [the Commission] may 

direct a hearing before a hearing examiner[,]” but it is not required to do so. Id. 

Ultimately, the Commission may not make an award under the Act unless the 

Commission determines by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) A crime was committed. 

(2) The person injured or killed was a direct victim or 

intervenor. 

(3) The crime was promptly reported to the proper 

authorities. In no case may an award be made if the record 

shows that the report was made more than 72 hours after 

the occurrence of the crime unless:

(i) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of 

the occurrence of the crime and the alleged offender 

is the victim’s parent or a person responsible for the 

victim’s welfare, an individual residing in the same 

home as the victim or a paramour of the victim’s 

parent; or

(ii) the [Commission] finds the delay to have been 

justified, consistent with bureau regulations.

(4) The direct victim, intervenor or claimant has fully 

cooperated with all law enforcement agencies and the 

[Commission] unless the [Commission] finds the 

noncompliance to have been justified consistent with [the 

Commission’s] regulations.

Section 707(a) of the Act.5 A claimant who is dissatisfied with the Commission’s 

final determination may file an appeal within 30 days of his/her receipt of a copy of 

the report containing such final determination in the manner set forth in Chapter 7, 

 

5

18 P.S. § 11.707.
7

Subchapter A of the Administrative Agency Law6for appeals from administrative 

agencies. Section 705 of the Act.7

Here, the Commission did not issue a final determination on Brown’s 

claim for compensation as required by Section 704 of the Act. First, the 

Commission’s October 5, 2015 letter provides Brown with conflicting information.

The letter clearly provides that the Commission is processing his claim (as opposed 

to approving or denying the claim). Although the letter includes a list of additional 

“information [that] is needed to process [Brown’s] claim,” the Commission includes 

language therein characterizing Brown as ineligible for certain compensation. (See

C.R., Item No. 2.) Second, the Commission’s August 23, 2016 letter simply advised 

Brown that the Commission cannot provide him with assistance in arranging outside 

medical treatment or counseling services or in obtaining copies of certain 

documentation because the Program does not offer such services. In neither letter 

does the Commission make any determination as to whether it is approving or 

denying Brown’s claim for compensation. For these reasons, we must conclude that 

Brown’s appeal is premature, because the Commission has not yet issued a final 

determination on Brown’s claim for compensation as required by Section 704 of the 

Act.

Accordingly, we dismiss Brown’s appellate jurisdiction claims as 

premature and remand the matter to the Commission for the issuance of a final 

 

6

2 Pa. C.S. §§ 701-704.

7

18 P.S. § 11.705.
8

determination in accordance with Section 704 of the Act and dismiss Brown’s 

original jurisdiction claims as moot.

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this case.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alton D. Brown, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 294 M.D. 2017

:

PA Commission on Crime :

and Delinquency, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of March, 2019, it is hereby ordered that 

Petitioner Alton D. Brown’s (Brown) appellate jurisdiction claims are DISMISSED 

as premature, and the matter is remanded to the Office of Victims’ Services for the 

Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency for the issuance of a final 

determination in accordance with Section 704 of the Crime Victim’s Act, Act of 

November 24, 1998, P.L. 882, as amended, 18 P.S. § 11.704. It is further ordered 

that Brown’s original jurisdiction claims are DISMISSED as moot.

Jurisdiction relinquished. 

P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge