IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Matthew P. Dec, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

: No. 271 C.D. 2015 Butler, PA. Clerk of Courts : Submitted: June 5, 2015

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY FILED: August 6, 2015

Matthew P. Dec (Dec) appeals the order of the Court of Common
Pleas of Butler County (common pleas court) that sustai ned the preliminary objections of the Clerk of Courts of Butler County (Clerk) and dismissed Dec’s
amended complaint.

On February 25, 2014, Dec commenced an action in the common
pleas court and alleged that three criminal convictions he received were voi d
because there was no colloquy concerning his waiver of his right to counsel in two
of the cases and an inadequate colloquy in the third case

. Dec sought declaratory

relief from fines and costs as well as the removal of the convictions from his

record.

On April 22, 2014, the Clerk preliminarily objected in the form of a
demurrer, and averred a lack of jurisdiction, and the failure of a pleading to

conform to law or rule.2 On May 21, 2014, Dec filed an amended complaint “as a Private
Attorney General for Violations Against the Universal Law of Void Judgments as Codified by the United States Supreme Court against Citizens of this State.”
Amended Complaint, May 21, 2014, (Amended Complaint) at 1. Dec alleged that

in each of the three listed criminal cases for which he was convicted , the trial court failed to give a “proper Waiver of Attorney on the record for which cause each of these cases are void judgments.” Amended Complaint, Paragraph No. 1 at 1. Dec
demanded that the Clerk produce a proper and cons titutional waiver of his right to counsel or enter “summary judgment in his favor for the quashing of the void judgments on his record.” Amended Complaint, Paragraph No. 3 at 2.

On May 22, 2014, the Clerk preliminarily objected to the Amended
Complaint. In the first preliminary objection, a demurrer to the Amended
Complaint, the Clerk alleged:

1. Plaintiff [Dec] has filed a Complaint that in essence seeks to change three (3) criminal convictions; those being (1) CP

- 10

- CR

- 1198

- 2005, (2) CP

- 10

- CR

- 1320

- 2007, and (3) CP

- 10

- CR

- 42

- 2006 (appealed at 1508 WDA 2012).

2. For each of the three (3) criminal cases, Plaintiff [Dec] is collaterally attacking the judgment of sentence on constitutional grounds and seeks to have his convictions declared void or overturned by a civil court.

3. What Plaintiff [Dec] is seeking is post

- conviction collateral relief.

4. Post

- conviction relief is governed by the Pennsylvania Post

- Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S. . . §§9541

- 9546 and the Pennsylvania Rules o f Criminal Procedure No. [sic] 900

- 910.3 5. Under Pennsylvania law, a petition for post

conviction relief must be filed within one (1) year of the date the judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S. . . §9545(a).

6. I n the case of CP

- 10

- CR

- 1198

- 2005, Plaintiff’ s [Dec] criminal judgment became final on December 11, 2008.

7. In the case of CP

- 10

- CR

- 1320

- 2007, Plaintiff’s [Dec] criminal judgment became final on February 5, 2009, and the Superior Court denied Plaintiff’s [Dec] appeal on March 7, 2014 (at 1903 WDA 2013).

8. In the case of CP

- 10

- CR

- 42

- 2006, Plaintiff’s [Dec] criminal judgment became final on October 16, 2013, when the Pennsylvania Superior Court denied Plaintiff’s [Dec] request for post

- conviction relief.

9. It is clear that not only does this Co urt lack jurisdiction because either the statute of limitations has expired, or only the sentencing Court has jurisdiction over the issues raised by Plaintiff [Dec] in his Complaint.

10. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff [Dec] has already raised th e same issues in his Petition for Post

Conviction Relief, the decisions of the criminal court bar the re

- litigation of the same issues under the doctrine of res judicata. Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, May 22,
2014, Paragraph Nos. 1

- 10 at 1

- 2.

In the second preliminary objection, the Clerk asserted that only the
criminal court that had imposed the sentences on Dec had the authority to review
the sentence it imposed and grant the relief that Dec sought. The Clerk re quested
that the Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice.4 In the third preliminary objection, the Clerk asserted that Dec failed to
execute a verification, failed to properly divide the pleading into paragraphs, and

failed to set forth facts which supported a cause of action in a concise and
summary form in compliance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 1019(a).

On September 11, 2014, the common pleas court heard oral argument
on the preliminary objections. The Clerk argued that the amended complaint was

devoid o f facts and that Dec was attempting to collaterally challenge his three

criminal convictions . The Clerk also argued that the wrong party was named as the

Clerk lacked the authority to accommodate i f the relief was granted. Notes of
Testimony, September 1 1, 2014, (N.T.) at 2

- 3.

Dec argued that because he did not have an attorney and did not waive
his right to an attorney, his convictions were null and void. N.T. at 5. He admitted that he was “going back to the convictions” and admitted that the Clerk could do
nothing. N.T. at 6. He further admitted that he was attacking the criminal
convictions because they were void. N.T. at 6.

By order dated September 11, 2014, the common pleas court sustained
all three preliminary objections and dismissed the Amended Complaint with
prejudice.

Dec raises 1 five issues for this Court’s review:

1 This Court’ s review is limited to determining whet her on the facts alleged the law states with certainty that no recovery is possible. Hawks v. Hawks v. Livermore , 629 A.2d 270, (Footnote continued on next page...)5 A

- If a malicious individual Tampered with Public Records two days from now and placed this Court on record as ‘Megan’s Law’ offenders convicted 8 years ago, can the ‘on e year jurisdictional time bar of the PCRA in any way make valid the obvious void judgment because this court ‘was no longer serving a sentence’?

B

- Second, would the Civil Rights victim of illegal violations of the Supreme Law of the Land’s Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments belong in Appellate or Civil Court proceedings?

C

- If a Void Judgment is discovered and made manifest at any time in any kind of case, is it to be vacated, or is the Court to say, ‘Too bad for you

- hoo. . . ?’

D

- If this Co urt vacated a man’s sentence, and the lower
court re

- sentenced without eve n a trial on NEW CHARGES the man on a lower grading of the original charges in Violation of Double Jeopardy . . . would the conviction now be valid because the Superior Court denied hearing ‘Per Curiam’ and the PCRA’s one year is up? . . . .

E

- If th e lower courts sentenced a man without an attorney, without waiving his Right thereto in violation of Pa. Crim. Rule 121, AND never had given a proper plea colloquy in violation of Code e stablished Due Process, AND convicted him of a crime that by elements he was never guilty of by higher court’s precedence; and upon learning thereof, he is beyond the ‘PCRA Jurisdictional Validation of Void Judgment’s’ one year time bar; is he now without relief? The PCRA having trumped the very Federal and State Constitutions themselves?

. . . . (Citations omitted. Emphasis in original. )

(continued...)

271 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). This Court must accept as true all well pled allegations and material facts averred in the complai nt as well as inferences reasonably deducible therefrom and any doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer. Id.6

Dec’s Brief at 3

- 4.

Essentially, Dec argues that the three convictions are void because he

did not have counsel

, di d not waive his right t o counsel , and/or was denied his right

to counsel. He also argues that he has an unlimited time from the time of his

conviction to raise these issues.

The Honorable S. Michael Yeager ably disposed of th is controversy in
his compre hensive opinion. Therefore, this Court shall affirm on the basis of that
opinion. Matthew P. Dec v. Butler, Pennsylvania, Clerk of Courts , Court of

Common Pleas of Butler County, A.D. No. 14

- 10197, (filed November 14, 2014 ).

Accordingly, this Court affi rms.

____________________________ BERNARD L. McGINLEY, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Matthew P. Dec, :

Appellant :

:

v. :

: No. 271 C.D. 2015 Butler, PA. Clerk of Courts :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6 th day of August , 20 1 5, the order of the Court of
Common Pleas of Butler County in the above

- captioned matter is affirmed.

____________________________ BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge