IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Routha Roussaw, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Department of :

Corrections, : No. 662 C.D. 2018

Respondent : Submitted: November 16, 2018

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: January 16, 2019

Routha Roussaw (Requester), pro se, petitions this Court for review of 

the Office of Open Record’s (OOR) May 1, 2018 Final Determination denying his

appeal from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ (DOC) denial of his Rightto-Know Law (RTKL)1

request (Request). The sole issue before this Court is 

whether the OOR properly denied Requester’s appeal because the Request was for a 

judicial record. Upon review, we affirm.

Requester is an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Dallas. On 

March 10, 2018, Requester filed the Request seeking a copy of his sentencing order 

pertaining to case number CP-51-CR-0931421-1989. On March 20, 2018, DOC 

denied the Request on the basis that the requested record is a judicial record not 

subject to disclosure under the RTKL. On April 5, 2018, Requester filed an appeal 

with the OOR challenging DOC’s denial and stating his grounds for disclosure. The 

OOR invited both parties to supplement the record and directed DOC to notify any 

 

1 Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
2

third parties of their ability to participate in this appeal pursuant to Section 1101(c) of 

the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1101(c). On April 12, 2018, DOC submitted a position 

statement, asserting that the record is a judicial agency record not subject to 

disclosure under the RTKL. On April 27, 2018, Requester provided a submission,

wherein he asserted that DOC should make the sentencing order available. On May 

1, 2018, the OOR issued its Final Determination denying Requester’s appeal. 

Requester appealed to this Court.2

Initially, “Section 701(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.701(a), provides the 

general rule of access: ‘Unless otherwise provided by law, a public record . . . shall 

be accessible for inspection and duplication in accordance with [the RTKL].’” Ali v. 

Phila. City Planning Comm’n, 125 A.3d 92, 99 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (emphasis 

added). 

Section 305(a) of the RTKL[3] provides for a presumption 

that all records in the possession of a [Commonwealth] 

agency are public records. Section 305(a) of the RTKL, 

however, mirrors the definition of ‘public record’ in Section 

102 of the RTKL,[4] by providing that the presumption

does not apply where the record in question is either (1) 

exempt under Section 708 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708; 

(2) exempt under federal or state law, regulation, or judicial 

order or decree; or (3) subject to a privilege.

Ali, 125 A.3d at 99 (emphasis added). Further, “[t]he public nature of a record, 

relating to content, is distinct from public access.” Grine v. Cty. of Ctr., 138 A.3d 88, 

98 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016).

 

2

“Our standard of review ‘is whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights 

were violated, or necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Our scope of 

review is plenary.’ Silver v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 58 A.3d 125, 127 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).” 

Phila. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Stover, 176 A.3d 1024, 1026 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017).

3

65 P.S. § 67.305(a).

4

65 P.S. § 67.102.
3

Requester first argues that DOC’s denial of his Request because it is a 

judicial record ignores his Request because DOC never stated whether it has the 

requested document and, if it does, why it should not be accessible to Requester. 

However, only agency records are disclosable under the RTKL, see Ali; therefore, it

is irrelevant whether DOC has the requested document. See Grine. Thus, “[t]he 

quintessential issue in this case is whether the requested records, namely the 

[sentencing order] are records ‘of’ [DOC] (a [Commonwealth] agency) or records 

‘of’ the court of common pleas (a judicial agency). If the records are the former, they 

are disclosable; if the latter, they are not.” Phila. Dist. Attorney’s Office v. Stover, 

176 A.3d 1024, 1028 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted). 

This Court has held that a sentencing order is a record ‘of’

the judiciary and, as such, it is not disclosable under the 

RTKL. The fact that [DOC] may possess[] - or readily 

obtain - a copy of the sentencing order in no way transforms 

the record of a judicial agency into a record of a local 

agency.

Id. at 1028-29 (citations omitted). Here, the requested document “[is] exempt from 

disclosure under the RTKL as records of a judicial agency.” Id. at 1030. 

Accordingly, the OOR properly denied Requester’s appeal because he requested a 

judicial record.

Requester next asserts that his Request is governed by Section 9764 of 

the Sentencing Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764, and, thus, DOC’s inability to produce the 

requested document “manifest[s] a fatal failure to establish [] DOC’s authority to 

detain [Requester].” Requester Br. at 13.

This Court acknowledges that Section 9764(a) of the Sentencing Code 

provides, in relevant part:

Upon commitment of an inmate to the custody of [DOC], 

the sheriff or transporting official shall provide to the 

institution’s records officer or duty officer, in addition to a 
4

copy of the court commitment form DC-300B generated 

from the Common Pleas Criminal Court Case Management 

System of the unified judicial system, the following 

information:

. . . .

(8) A copy of the sentencing order and any detainers filed 

against the inmate [of] which the county has notice.

42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a). Nevertheless, the law is well settled that “an appeal from an 

OOR order denying [Requester’s] request for access to a public record is not the 

proper forum to challenge . . . his continued incarceration.” Moore v. Office of Open 

Records, 992 A.2d 907, 910 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Consequently, this argument is 

meritless.

For all of the above reasons, the OOR’s Final Determination is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Routha Roussaw, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania Department of :

Corrections, : No. 662 C.D. 2018

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2019, the Office of Open Record’s 

May 1, 2018 Final Determination is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge