J-S04013-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN RE: JAMES KING

APPEAL OF: JAMES KING

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 991 MDA 2020

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Union County Criminal 

Division at No(s): CP-60-MD-0000127-2020

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED MARCH 8, 2021

Appellant, James King, expressly appeals from no order entered in this 

case. We quash this appeal.

The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this case:

On October 8, 2019, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper 

Zachary Martin filed a criminal complaint against [Appellant], 

charging him with possession of a controlled substance with 

intent to deliver, possession of a controlled substance, 

possession of drug paraphernalia, criminal attempt, and 

criminal conspiracy. The charges stemmed from a shipment 

of methamphetamine by UPS to a residence in Union County, 

which shipment was intercepted by the state police.

After a preliminary hearing on November 12, 2019, [the 

magisterial district court] bound all charges over to court. . 

. . The Commonwealth nolle prossed the charges on July 15, 

2020 because the United States took over prosecution of the 

offenses in the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of Pennsylvania. . . .

Meanwhile, on April 6, 2020, [Appellant] filed a private 

criminal complaint with the Union County District Attorney 

pursuant to [Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 506. 
J-S04013-21

- 2 -

In his draft complaint, [Appellant] charged Trooper Zachary 

Martin with two counts of unsworn falsification to authorities

and two counts of perjury and several other offenses. The 

two counts of unsworn falsification related to the criminal 

complaint and affidavit of probable cause Trooper Martin filed 

against [Appellant]. The two counts of perjury related to 

Trooper Martin’s testimony at [Appellant’s] preliminary 

hearing and at a co-defendant’s preliminary hearing.

The Union County District Attorney took no action on the 

private criminal complaint. On May 6, 2020, [Appellant] filed 

an appeal with [the court of common pleas] from the District 

Attorney’s failure to take any action on his private criminal 

complaint. [The trial court] issued a rule to show cause why 

[Appellant’s] petition should not be granted on the District 

Attorney. The District Attorney did not respond to the rule.[1]

____________________________________________

1 Within the Commonwealth’s brief, the Commonwealth declares that the 

District Attorney did, in fact, disapprove Appellant’s private criminal 

complaint. The Commonwealth writes:

In response to [Appellant’s] request for a private criminal 

complaint, the District Attorney of Union County, D. Peter 

Johnson, denied [Appellant’s] request on June 22, 2020, and 

explained his policy as follows:

It is the policy of this office to not approve private criminal 

complaints from defendants against the affiant/investigating 

officer(s) where it appears the effort is not supported by 

credible admissible evidence separate from the defendant’s

statements, interpretations and arguments especially where 

that defendant has a long line of convictions for matters 

crimen falsi and is facing legitimate charges for serious 

felonies.

Commonwealth’s Answer to Rule Returnable Regarding 

[Appellant’s] Appeal of Refusal to Answer Criminal Complaint, p. 

2.

Obviously, we do not doubt the veracity of the above statement. However,

there is no indication that the Commonwealth’s “Answer to Rule Returnable” 
J-S04013-21

- 3 -

Trial Court Opinion, 8/17/20, at 1-2 (some capitalization omitted).

On June 30 and July 13, 2020, Appellant filed requests for a hearing 

regarding his private criminal complaint; however, the trial court did not 

immediately rule upon Appellant’s requests for a hearing. 

On July 21, 2020, after Appellant seemingly grew impatient with the 

trial court, Appellant simply filed a notice of appeal to this Court. The notice 

of appeal declares that Appellant is not appealing from any order; instead, the 

notice of appeal declares that Appellant is appealing from “the repeated 

refusal by the Court to answer his motions for a hearing.” Appellant’s Notice 

of Appeal, 7/21/20, at 1.

On July 28, 2020 – or, seven days after Appellant filed his notice of 

appeal – the trial court an order declaring:

1. [Appellant’s] request for a hearing filed on June 30, 2020 

and second request for a hearing filed on July 13, 2020 are 

DENIED.

2. [Appellant’s] request for approval of a private criminal 

complaint is DENIED.

Trial Court Order, 7/28/20, at 1 (some capitalization omitted).

Appellant did not file a notice of appeal following the trial court’s final 

order. We now quash this appeal.

As we have explained, this Court is obligated to “first ascertain whether 

the [order appealed from] is properly appealable, because the question of 

____________________________________________

was filed of record, as it is not contained in the certified record and was not 

docketed in this case.
J-S04013-21

- 4 -

appealability implicates the jurisdiction of this [C]ourt.” Commonwealth v. 

Borrero, 692 A.2d 158, 159 (Pa. Super. 1997). “The general rule is that, 

unless otherwise permitted by statute, only appeals from final orders are 

subject to appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Sartin, 708 A.2d 121, 122 

(Pa. Super. 1998). In relevant part, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

341 defines a “final order” as any order that “disposes of all claims and of all 

parties.” Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1).

In the case at bar, Appellant did not file a notice of appeal from any

order at all. Indeed, Appellant explicitly refused to wait for the trial court’s 

ruling and simply filed a notice of appeal, not from an order, but from “the 

repeated refusal by the Court to answer his motions for a hearing.” 

Appellant’s Notice of Appeal, 7/21/20, at 1 (emphasis added). This is

manifestly improper.

We note that, under Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

905(a)(5), “[a] notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a 

determination but before the entry of an appealable order shall be treated as 

filed after such entry and on the day thereof.” Pa.R.A.P. 905(a)(5). In the 

case at bar, however, Appellant filed his notice of appeal before “the 

announcement of a determination.” See id. To be sure, Appellant filed his 

notice of appeal seven days before the trial court made any ruling whatsoever 

in this case. Thus, Rule 905(a)(5) does not apply to this case.

In conclusion, since Appellant has expressly appealed from no order in 

this case, we quash this appeal.
J-S04013-21

- 5 -

Appeal quashed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 03/08/2021