J-S19040-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: THEODORE J. DAVENPORT

APPEAL OF: THEODORE J. 

DAVENPORT

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 766 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Order Entered April 27, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-22-MD-0000648-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E. and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 10, 2017

Appellant, Theodore J. Davenport, appeals pro se from the order 

entered on April 27, 2016, in the Criminal Division of the Court of Common 

Pleas of Dauphin County that affirmed the district attorney’s denial of 

Appellant’s private criminal complaints. After a careful review, we affirm. 

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: In August of 

2011, Appellant pled guilty to two counts of robbery, and for each count, he 

was sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of 120 months to 240 months 

in prison, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant did not file a direct 

appeal to this Court; however, on March 5, 2012, he filed a collateral 

petition under the Post Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 

____________________________________________

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S19040-17

- 2 -

9541-9546. Following the dismissal of this petition on August 20, 2013, 

Appellant filed an appeal to this Court, and we affirmed. See 

Commonwealth v. Davenport, 2014 WL 10936923 (Pa.Super. filed 

5/19/14) (unpublished memorandum). 

Thereafter, Appellant filed four private criminal complaints. 

Specifically, as explained by the trial court:

[Appellant] filed four private criminal complaints in 

November [of] 2015. [The complaints named Detectives John 

O’Connor and Quinton Kennedy, as well as two unknown female 

officers.]...The complaints allege that four officers conspired to 

forge Magisterial District Judge George A. Zozos’ signature on 

several documents relating to [Appellant’s] November 2010 

arrest. The crimes alleged are: criminal solicitation, criminal 

conspiracy, forgery, fraudulent destruction, tampering with 

records/identification, identity theft, perjury, false swearing, 

tampering with or fabricating physical evidence, tampering with 

public records/information, impersonating a public servant, 

obstructing administration of law, obstructing or impeding the 

administration of justice[,] and official oppression. 

Detective John Goshert investigated and the officers in 

question indicated there was nothing unusual about the arrest[.] 

[H]e also spoke with [Magisterial District Judge] Zozos who 

confirmed the signature on the documents is his. Detective 

Goshert also spoke with [Appellant] about his claims. 

Trial Court Order/Opinion, filed 4/27/16.1

By letter dated March 15, 2016, the District Attorney’s Office 

disapproved Appellant’s four private criminal complaints. In so doing, the 

district attorney provided the following reasons:

____________________________________________

1 The trial court’s order/opinion is not paginated. 
J-S19040-17

- 3 -

I have reviewed the November 2015 private criminal 

complaints and I had CID Detective John Goshert investigate this 

matter.

Detective Goshert spoke with you via telephone. You 

informed him that you were taken into custody by the Harrisburg 

Police on Wednesday, November 10, 2010. You remained in 

their custody from approximately Noon until 4:00/5:00 p.m. It 

was during this time that you allege you heard Detective 

O’Connor say to another officer that the judge did not sign the 

criminal complaint. When you received the charging documents, 

you noticed the signature of Magisterial District Judge George 

Zozos did not look like it was completely signed. You suspected 

that Detective O’Connor and other officers forged the judge’s 

name. When Detective Goshert asked you why you never 

brought this issue up during the time of your court proceedings, 

you indicated that your Public Defender Jessica Bush advised she 

was not “going down that road.”

Detective Goshert then interviewed both Detective 

O’Connor and Detective Kennedy. They denied forging the 

judge’s signature. They asserted there was nothing unusual 

about your arrest. 

On February 8, 2016, Detective Goshert interviewed 

[Magisterial District Judge] Zozos concerning your allegations. 

He stated that he has no direct knowledge about the situation as 

he signs thousands of documents every year. However, when 

shown the documents in question, he verified his signature. He 

stated that he must have been in a hurry that day, but that it 

was definitely his signature on the documents.

Since [Magisterial District Judge] Zozos confirmed there 

was no wrongdoing in this matter, your private criminal 

complaints are [ ] disapproved.

District Attorney’s Letter, dated 3/15/16.2

Appellant filed with the trial court petitions for review of the 

disapproval of the private criminal complaints, and by order/opinion entered 

____________________________________________

2 This document is not paginated.
J-S19040-17

- 4 -

on April 27, 2016, the trial court denied the petitions. This timely pro se

appeal followed. The trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 

1925(b) statement, Appellant timely complied, and the trial court filed a 

brief statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). 

Initially, we note that, although he purports to present sixteen issues 

for our review, many of the issues are overlapping and/or repetitive. 

Moreover, we note that Appellant’s pro se brief is confusing, unorganized, 

and redundant. However, upon review, we have discerned the following 

issues: (1) the district attorney erred and had an insufficient basis to 

disapprove Appellant’s private criminal complaints since she failed to conduct 

an adequate investigation;3(2) the district attorney erred in concluding 

there was insufficient evidence of the forgery since the signature was not 

that of a full name but consisted only of initials and Detective O’Connor 

made accompanying statements of intent; (3) by failing to recognize the 

signature was a forgery, the district attorney and the lower court violated 

Appellant’s due process rights; and (4) assuming the magisterial district 

judge wrote the initials, as opposed to the officers, the use of initials was 

improper, thus voiding the criminal complaints against Appellant.

____________________________________________

3 Appellant points to various ways in which the district attorney’s 

investigation was allegedly inadequate, including failing to conduct an 

independent investigation, failing to attempt to learn the identity of the two 

female officers who were present when the forgery occurred, and failing to 

consider whether Magisterial District Judge Zozos was on duty at the time in 

question.
J-S19040-17

- 5 -

We note the following legal precepts, which are relevant to this case. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 506 provides for the submission of 

private criminal complaints to an attorney for the Commonwealth, “who shall 

approve or disapprove it without unreasonable delay.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(A). 

The rule further provides that “if the Commonwealth’s attorney 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.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(B)(2).

Our examination of a trial court’s review of the district attorney’s 

decision to disapprove a private criminal complaint implicates the following:

[W]hen the district attorney disapproves a private criminal 

complaint solely on the basis of legal conclusions, the trial court 

undertakes de novo review of the matter. Thereafter, the 

appellate court will review the trial court's decision for an error 

of law. As with all questions of law, the appellate standard of 

review is de novo and the appellate scope of review is plenary.

* * *

[W]hen the district attorney disapproves a private criminal 

complaint on wholly policy considerations, or on a hybrid of legal 

and policy considerations, the trial court's standard of review of 

the district attorney's decision is abuse of discretion. This 

deferential standard recognizes the limitations on judicial power 

to interfere with the district attorney's discretion in these kinds 

of decisions.

In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 214-15 (Pa.Super. 2005) (en banc) (citations 

omitted).

A private criminal complaint must at the outset set forth a prima facie

case of criminal conduct. In re Private Complaint of Adams, 764 A.2d 
J-S19040-17

- 6 -

577 (Pa.Super. 2000). Nevertheless, even “a well-crafted private criminal 

complaint cannot be the end of the inquiry for the prosecutor.” Id. at 580.

The district attorney must investigate the allegations of the complaint to 

permit a proper decision whether to approve or disapprove the complaint. 

Commonwealth v. Muroski, 506 A.2d 1312 (Pa.Super. 1986) (en banc). 

“[S]uch investigation is not necessary where the allegations of criminal 

conduct in the complaint are unsupported by factual averments. 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.” Id. at 1317 (citation omitted).

Moreover, 

[E]ven if the facts recited in the complaint make out a prima 

facie case, the district attorney cannot blindly bring charges, 

particularly where an investigation may cause h[er] to question 

their validity. Forcing the prosecutor to bring charges in every 

instance where a complaint sets out a prima facie case would 

compel the district attorney to bring cases [s]he suspects, or has 

concluded via investigation, are meritless. The public prosecutor 

is duty bound to bring only those cases that are appropriate for 

prosecution. This duty continues throughout a criminal 

proceeding and obligates the district attorney to withdraw 

charges when [s]he concludes, after investigation, that the 

prosecution lacks a legal basis.

In re Wilson, 879 A.2d at 212 (quotation and citations omitted). 

When the district attorney disapproves a private criminal complaint, 

based on the sufficiency of the evidence necessary to establish the elements 

of the crime charged, that decision is a legal conclusion subject to de novo

review. See Commonwealth ex rel. Guarrasi v. Carroll, 979 A.2d 383, 
J-S19040-17

- 7 -

385 (Pa.Super. 2009) (stating district attorney's disapproval of private 

criminal complaint due to lack of evidence to prove elements of crimes 

charged constitutes legal conclusion subject to de novo review). 

With regard to Appellant’s first claim, contrary to his averment, we 

conclude the district attorney adequately investigated the allegations made 

in Appellant’s private criminal complaints in determining whether she should 

approve or disapprove the complaints. As the trial court succinctly 

indicated:

As is the usual practice in the District Attorney’s Office, 

[the district attorney] contacted a detective to investigate a 

claim of criminal activity. She followed the proper procedure in 

this matter. [The district attorney] utilized the evidence that 

Detective Goshert gathered to make her decision to deny the 

private criminal complaints. Her reasoning was set forth in a 

letter attached to the complaints. 

***

[Appellant] contends that [the district attorney] failed to 

conduct a full and thorough investigation of the evidence 

submitted by [Appellant]. Again, we note that Detective Goshert 

did thoroughly investigate the claims upon [the district 

attorney’s] request. He also interviewed Magisterial District 

Judge George Zozos who confirmed that the signature was his, 

but also indicated he had no direct knowledge of that as he signs 

thousands of documents every year. He also interviewed 

[Appellant]. 

Trial Court Order/Opinion, filed 4/27/16. We find no error in this regard. 

Moreover, with regard to the issue of the district attorney’s alleged failure to 

attempt to identify two female police officers and determine whether 

Magisterial District Judge Zozos was on duty, in light of the fact the 

magisterial district judge confirmed the signatures at issue belonged to him, 
J-S19040-17

- 8 -

Appellant has not explained how the alleged additional information would 

have assisted the district attorney in making her decision.

With regard to Appellant’s next two claims, i.e., that the district 

attorney erred in concluding there was insufficient evidence that a crime 

occurred in this case and that the district attorney’s/lower court’s failure to 

recognize a crime occurred violated Appellant’s due process rights, we find 

no relief is due.

In disapproving Appellant’s private criminal complaints, the district 

attorney found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing; that is, she found no 

evidence that any person other than Magisterial District Judge Zozos signed 

his name to the documents at issue. Therefore, the district attorney’s 

disapproval was based on a legal evaluation of the evidence, resulting in the 

conclusion that there was insufficient evidence necessary to establish the 

elements of the crimes charged in Appellant’s private criminal complaints.4

The certified record makes clear that the trial court correctly reviewed the 

district attorney’s decision under the de novo standard. See Carroll, 

supra. Specifically, in conducting its de novo review, the trial court 

relevantly set forth the following:

____________________________________________

4 Although Appellant cited several crimes in his private criminal complaints, 

the “gist” of the private criminal complaints was that, in the presence of 

other officers, a detective, without authorization, signed the Magisterial 

District Judge’s signature on Appellant’s criminal complaints. Accordingly, 

we find it unnecessary to set forth or discuss in detail the elements for each 

crime alleged by Appellant.
J-S19040-17

- 9 -

[Appellant] contends [the district attorney] erred as a 

matter of law when she issued the denial [since there was 

sufficient evidence]. [Appellant also] claims his [due process] 

rights...were violated. 

The [private criminal] complaints and evidence do not 

show direct violations of any of these. The complaints reveal 

[Appellant’s] belief that the officers forged [Magisterial District 

Judge] Zozos’ signature; however, upon investigation, 

[Magisterial District Judge] Zozos confirmed that it was his 

signature. [He] has no reason to lie about the signature being 

his and as his statement indicates the signature is his, there is 

no basis for the complaints. 

***

[Appellant] contends that [the district attorney] erred as a 

matter of law because [Magisterial District Judge] Zozos 

informed Detective Goshert that he has no direct knowledge of 

the situation, but confirmed that the signature was his when it 

was not a signature on the documents, but rather just initials.

[Magisterial District Judge] Zozos indicated to Detective 

Goshert that it was his signature, albeit a sloppy signature. 

[Magisterial District Judge] Zozos is best situated to recognize 

his own signature and as he indicated he signs thousands of 

documents each year, one can presume that at some point the 

hand grows weary and the handwriting gets sloppier. 

Trial Court Order/Opinion, filed 4/27/16. After an independent review of the 

certified record in this case, we accept the trial court’s assessment and see 

no error in that decision. See In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207 (Pa.Super. 

2010) (setting forth our review of trial court’s determination following the 

trial court’s de novo review). We remind Appellant that the district attorney 

“cannot blindly bring charges, particularly where an investigation may cause 

h[er] to question their validity.” In re Wilson, 879 A.2d at 212 (quotation 

and citations omitted). In the case sub judice, after investigation, the 

district attorney concluded the allegations made in Appellant’s private 
J-S19040-17

- 10 -

criminal complaints were meritless, and thus, there was insufficient evidence 

of “wrongdoing.” As this was within the district attorney’s purview, and the 

trial court properly undertook a de novo review of the matter, we find no 

error. 

In his final claim, Appellant argues that the “signatures” were actually 

initials. He further argues that, assuming the magisterial district judge 

wrote the initials, as opposed to the detective, the use of initials was 

improper, thus voiding the criminal complaints against Appellant. To the 

extent this claim is not otherwise waived for Appellant failing to present it 

within the context of his own criminal proceedings, we simply dispose of the 

issue by adopting the trial court’s analysis that “[Magisterial District Judge] 

Zozos identified the signatures as his own [and not as his initials]. [H]e is 

the best situated to identify his own signature.” Trial Court Order/Opinion, 

filed 4/27/16.

Based on the aforementioned, applying the appropriate appellate 

standard of review, we conclude Appellant failed to show the trial court 

committed an error of law in affirming the district attorney’s denial of 

Appellant’s private criminal complaints. See In re Ullman, supra. 

Accordingly, we affirm.
J-S19040-17

- 11 -

Affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/10/2017