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 sustained 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 void 

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 constitutional 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 of Criminal Procedure No.

[sic] 900-910.
3

5. Under Pennsylvania law, a petition for postconviction relief must be filed within one (1) year of the 

date the judgment becomes final. 42 Pa.C.S. . . §9545(a).

6. In 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 Court 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 the same issues in his Petition for PostConviction 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 requested 

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 of 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 if the relief was granted. Notes of 

Testimony, September 11, 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 raises1five issues for this Court’s review:

 

1

This Court’s review is limited to determining whether 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 ‘one 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 Court vacated a man’s sentence, and the lower 

court re-sentenced without even 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 the 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 established 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 complaint 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, did not waive his right to 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 this controversy in 

his comprehensive 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 affirms.

____________________________

BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

 
IN 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, 2015, the order of the Court of 

Common Pleas of Butler County in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.

____________________________

BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge