J-S74008-19

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

EUGENE SPUGLIO 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 2572 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 19, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Criminal Division at 

No(s): CP-23-SA-0001428-2018

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

MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2020

Appellant, Eugene Spuglio, appeals pro se from the June 19, 2019 

judgment of sentence of $600 in fines, and costs of prosecution, imposed after 

he was convicted of violating two local ordinances in Ridley Township, 

Pennsylvania. After review, we conclude that this case falls within the 

exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. Therefore, we transfer this 

appeal to that Court.

We need not set forth the facts of this case, nor provide a detailed 

procedural history. We only note that on June 19, 2019, Appellant was found 

guilty, following a non-jury trial, of violating two local housing ordinances

pertaining to the inspection and operation of rooming units, or ‘boarding

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S74008-19

- 2 -

houses.’ That same day, the court sentenced Appellant to pay a $300 fine for 

each violation, and the costs of prosecution. 

On July 10, 2019, Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal with the 

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On August 12, 2019, the Supreme Court issued 

an order transferring his appeal to this Court. In Appellant’s pro se brief, he 

states the following four issues for our review:

[I.] Whether the State of Pennsylvania is sovereign over Ridley 

Township. 

[II.] Whether Act of Jun. 3, 1915, P.L. 954, No. 420 or amended 

governs rooming houses.

[III.] Whether Pa. Code 20.1 regulates rooming houses.

[IV.] Whether Ridley Township ordinances governing rooming 

houses are valid.

Appellant’s Brief at 2.

Before we consider Appellant’s issues, we must determine whether his 

case should be transferred to the Commonwealth Court under 42 Pa.C.S. § 

762. That statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

§ 762. Appeals from courts of common pleas

(a) General rule.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 

the Commonwealth Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of 

appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas in 

the following cases: 

* * *

(4) Local government civil and criminal matters.--

(i) All actions or proceedings arising under any 

municipality, institution district, public school, 

planning or zoning code or under which a 
J-S74008-19

- 3 -

municipality or other political subdivision or 

municipality authority may be formed or 

incorporated or where is drawn in question the 

application, interpretation or enforcement of 

any:

***

(B) home rule charter or local ordinance 

or resolution[.]

42 Pa.C.S. § 762(4)(i)(B). 

In this case, Appellant is challenging the application and/or enforcement 

of a local ordinance, thus falling within the Commonwealth Court’s jurisdiction 

under section 762(4)(i)(B). We recognize that the Commonwealth has not 

raised any issue with this Court’s jurisdiction and, therefore, “it is within our 

discretion to transfer the matter to the Commonwealth Court or retain 

jurisdiction.” Lara, Inc., v. Dorney Park Coaster Co., Inc., 534 A.2d 1062, 

1066 (Pa. Super. 1987); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 704 (providing for an 

exception to exclusive jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court if the appellee 

does not object to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Superior Court). In Lara, 

Inc., we explained that,

[i]n exercising this discretion, we must examine the question on 

a case by case basis. This [C]ourt may retain jurisdiction over 

cases that should have been appealed to the Commonwealth 

Court in the interest of judicial economy. However, ... the interest 

of judicial economy must be weighed against other interests, one 

of which is the possibility of establishing conflicting lines of 

authority.

Lara, Inc., 534 A.2d at 1066. Notably, we cautioned in Lara, Inc., that “we 

should be most cautious in assuming jurisdiction over matters that properly 

belong before the Commonwealth Court.” Id. (footnote omitted).
J-S74008-19

- 4 -

Here, the Commonwealth Court has experience in the law regarding 

local ordinances. Additionally, we seek to avoid the risk of establishing 

conflicting lines of authority in that area of the law. Accordingly, we transfer 

Appellant’s appeal.

Case transferred to Commonwealth Court. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/14/20