### J - A20030
- 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. RUBEN M. COLLAZO, Appellant No. 3210 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence October 23 , 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County Criminal Division at No(s): CP
- 45 - SA
- 0000089
- 2014
BEFORE: DONOHUE, SHOGAN, and WECHT, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 07, 2015 Appellant, Ruben M. Collazo, appeals pro se from the judgment of sentence entered following a de novo summary appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County. We affirm. 1 

### In December of 2010, at the Mount Airy Casino in Paradise Township, Appellant was witnessed distributing business cards that advertised his website. Because solicitation is not permitted at the casino, security ejected Appellant from the property and directed him not t o return. Additionally, Mr. Trevor Tasetano, a security manager at Mount Airy, personally

____________________________________________ 1 

### On July 22, 2015, Appellant filed a motion for continuance in this Court that appears to be a copy of a motion for a continuance in a separate case filed at Monroe County criminal docket number CP
- 45 - CR
- 2279
- 2014. As that case is not before this Court a nd because it has no bearing on the case at bar, Appellant’s motion is DENIED.

### J - A20030
- 15

- 2
-

telephoned Appellant and advised him that he had violated Mount Airy policy and was now barred from the premises. Despite this bar, on or about November 29, 2013, Mo unt Airy security officers were advised by casino employees that Appellant was again on the property. Mount Airy security then called the State Police to report a suspected trespasser. Appellant was charged with criminal trespass and found guilty. Therea fter, Appellant filed a summary appeal from his conviction, and the trial court held a de novo trial. On October 23, 2014, the trial court found Appellant guilty of criminal trespass and imposed a fine of $300.00. This timely appeal followed. On November 25, 2014, the trial court directed Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On December 15, 2014, Appellant, pro se , filed a document entitled “Defendant’s Concise Statement.” In the concise statement, Appellant averred that the verdict was based on unsupported allegations, the trial court erred in applying 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 of the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, and Mount Airy infringed on Appellant’s freedom of religion. Concise Statement, 12/15/14, at 1
- 2. However, in his pro se appellate brief, Appellant has raised only his challenge concerning the alleged violation of 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515. Appellant’s Brief at 8
- 9. Therefore, the balance of Appellant’s claims of error, w hich were raised in the Pa.R.A.P.

### J - A20030
- 15

- 3
-

1925(b) statement, are deemed waived due to his failure to present them in the statement of questions involved. See Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions invo lved or is fairly suggested thereby.”). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified record before us on appeal, and the thorough opinion of the trial court dated January 7, 2015. While the trial court provided Appellant ample opportunity to present his defense and challenge the Commonwealth’s case, Appellant’s attack on 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 is both misplaced and wholly inaccurate. 2 

### As the trial court explained at both the summary appe al and in its opinion, 4 Pa.C.S. § 1515 does not prevent Mount Airy from ejecting individuals who disrupt the casino’s operations. It is our conclusion that the issues presented by Appellant lack merit, and the trial court’s opinion aptly disposes of Appe llant’s claims raised on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of sentence on the basis of the trial court’s opinion and adopt its reasoning as our own. The parties are directed to attach a copy of that opinion in the event of further proceedings in this matter.

____________________________________________ 2 

### While this Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant. Commonwealth v. Adams , 882 A.2d 496, 498 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). “To the contrary, any person choosing to represent himself in a legal proceeding must, to a reasonable extent, assume that his lack of expertise and legal training will be his undoing.” Id
.

### J - A20030
- 15

- 4 -

Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/7/2015I 

### \ ·- I



### Co urt w a s serv ed wi th D efe ndant ' s C onci s e .. S tatemen t. The D e fendant cite s num ero u s o n the Co urt, hi s Concis e St atemen t o f M atters o n Appeal. On o r ab o ut D ece mber 12 , 201 4, thi s 2 014 , th is C ourt en te re d an Ord e r requiri ng th e Def e ndant ( App e llant o n app eal) to file and s erv e Th e De f endant fil e d a time ly appeal to thi s C ourt ' s Order. On N o vember 2 5, c riminal tre s p as s and impo s iti o n o f a $ 300 fine plu s cos t s. O pini o n i s i n s upport o f o ur Ord e r e ntered O c tobe r 23, 2014 finding the De fe ndant g uil ty o f o f th e offen s e fo llo w in g a b e n c h trial and h as appeal e d the m atte r to the Sup e ri o r C o urt
. Thi s Cas in o ) i n Par a di se T own s hip , Monro e C o unty , P e nn sy l v ani a . The D e fendan t w as fo und gu i lty tresp ass o c c urred on the pre mi s es of th e Moun t Airy C as i no an d Re so rt ( h e reafte r Mt. A i ry th e D e fendant unde r 1 8 P a . C
. S
. A. § 350 3 (b)(l ), fo r criminal tresp as s . Th e all eg ed c ri min al M o nr o e C ounty Di s tri ct Att o rn ey ' s Offic e , pre se n te d te stimony in supp o rt of a ci t ati o n i ss ued t o 2 3 , 2 014
. Th e D e fe n d ant , Ru b e n Coll azo appe ared pros e . 

### Th e Co mmon we alth , thr oug h th e

Thi s m att e r in vol ved a S ummary 

### Ap p eal , heard d e n o v o 

### b y this Co urt on Oct o b e r 

### OP I NION PURSUANT TO PA. R .A.P.1925(a) : PA. R .A.P.1925(a) Defen d ant RUBEN M. COLLAZ

O, vs . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: NO. 89 SA 2014

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MO N R O E COUNT

Y FOR T Y - THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM2

re s o rt and g ami n g pr o p e rty l o cate d in P ara d i s e T o wn shi p, Mo m o e Co unty , P enns y l van i a .

Th e fac t s at tim e of trial w er e l arg e l y un con tr a d i ct e d

. Mt. A iry C as i no i s a pri vat e 1 8 Pa
. C .S
. A. § 3 50 3 ( b )( l )
. 1. ac tual c o mmu nicatio n to th e acto r ."

( 1 ) A pe r s on co mmi t s an o ffe nse i f , kn ow i ng th at he i s n o t lic en s ed o r p ri v i le g e d t o d o so , h e enter s o r r e m ai n s i n an y pl ace as t o w h i c h n oti c e a gai n s t tr es p ass i s g i ve n b y : " (b )
. D efiant tr esp a ss e r. fo ll ow s: Th e charge o f cri mi n al tres p ass und e r 18 Pa
. C
. S. A. § 35 0 3(b ) ( l ) , i s d efi ne d a s p ro p e rty afte r r e ceivin g th e n otice pro hib itin g him fr o m b e i n g o n the p rop e rty. n o t to b e o n M t. Ai ry C a s i no prope rty
. T he D efe ndant ackn ow l ed g e d h e was on M t. Ai ry C as in o pr o hibitin g hi m fr o m b e in g on the premi se s. The D efen dan t a ckno w le d ge d re c e ipt o f th e n o tic e w as cited fo r cri min al tre s p as s fo r ent ering the M t. Airy Cas in o pr e mi se s afte r r e cei vi n g n o ti ce

We h ave re v i ew ed the t es tim o n y i n thi s ca s e an d find a s fo ll o w s: T h e D e fe n d ant C
. A co n stitution al c hall e n g e that D e fe ndant w as s u bje c t to di s criminatio n du e to r e li g i o n . B. That § 1515 o f the P enn s y l v ania R a c e H o r se D e vel o pment and G amin g Act o r 58 Pa
. C o d e §50l( a ) app l i es, barrin g a find i n g und e r 1 8 Pa
. C
. S.A. §3 50 3 ( 1:> )( l ), o f cri mi n al tre s p ass; A. The ve rdic t wa s ba sed up on un s upport e d alle g ati o n s an d he arsay; w er e n o t tes tifi e d t o at th e time of tri al. D e fe ndant appe ar s t o r ai s e the fo ll o w in g is s u es : of c rimin al tres p ass. The D e fe nd an t al so cites fo urte e n ( 14 ) " A dd itional Fa c ts " , 

### m an y of w hi c h c h allen ges t o th is C o urt ' s Order, so me o f which do n o t app e ar ge rm an e to the un d erl yi n g c h ar g e Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM

## I j i.. i

3 

### Defendant as the individual who was on the property and had produced the identification with line-up of eight (8) individuals, including the Defendant, and he was able to identify the testified that Trooper Victor Ortalano responded to the call. Mr. Tasetano was shown a photo Defendant before, but called the state police to report a suspected trespasser. Mr. Tasetano · driver's license with the last name of "Aviles". (N.T. 8). Mr. Tasetano had never met the because the Defendant was not to be on the property. The Defendant showed Mr. Tasetano a approached the Defendant in the Mt. Airy Casino building and requested his identification, that the Defendant was on the property. (N.T. 7). Based upon this information, Mr. Tasetano

On or about 11/29/13, Mr. Tasetano was advised by Mt. Airy Casino employees Mt. Airy Casino premises, although it was not includedin testimony before this Court). a letter from Mt. Airy Casino dated December 24, 2010 that he was no longer permitted on the was no longer permitted on the premises. (The Defendant also attached to his Concise Statement mailing list. (Id.). The Defendant did not dispute that he was advised in December 2010 that he mailing list of Mt. Airy Casino, to which Mr. Tasetano responded he would be removed from the (N.T. 6). Mr. Tasetano testified that the Defendant stated during the call that he was on a solicitation policy of Mt. Airy Casino, and that he was no longer permitted on the premises. Collazo on or about December 16 or 17, 2010, to advise him that he had violated the no person operating it was the Defendant, Ruben Collazo. (N.T. 5-6). Mr. Tasetano called Mr. · building. (N.T. 5). Mr
. Tasetano investigated who the website belonged to and identified the observed handing out business cards with a website address thereon, inside the Mt. Airy Casino security shift manager, testified to the following. In or about December 2010, an individual was (Commonwealth's Exh. 3 - citation issued to Defendant). Mr. Tasetano, employed as the 

# . ' Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM4 I Trooper Ortalano served in the Pennsylvania State Police until retiring in 2014. (NT 17).

The Defendant testified in this matter as well. He stated he had a website for problem gambling; that he was banned from Mt. Airy Casino for handing out cards for his · website on 

### Mt. Airy Casino property (although he denied doing so); that the ban was because the Vice President of Operations for Mt. Airy Casino, 

### Mr. Magda, did not like the content of the website; and that he should not have been banned from the property in 2010. (N.T. 30-36). The Defendant further testified that he was inform e d he had been evicted from the premises due to an incident on December 17 , 2010 (N.T. 37) and that he was on the property on November 29, 2013. (N.T. 37). the las t name "Aviles". (N.T. 9-10). Mr. Taset an o also identified the Defendant at trial 

### as the person he encountered on Mt. Airy Casino property on November 29, 2013. (Id.)

Trooper Ortalano also testified at time of trial. He was a Pennsylvania State Trooper appo i nted to a post at Mt. Airy Casino through the gaming commission. 1 Trooper Ortalano testified to the following. He was called to investigate an alleged criminal trespass by the Defendant on Nov e mber 29, 2013. (N.T. 17). Trooper Ortalano's investigation found that the Defendant was using the name "Av i les" and had a player ' s club card with the name "Aviles" on it; that the Defendant was not allowed on the property; that 

### a photo array of the D e fendant sh o wn to Mr. Tasetano and one other Mt. Airy Casino employee provided a positi v e identification of the Defendant on the property; and that surveillance video from Mt. Airy Casino, viewed by Trooper Ortalano, showed the Defendant on the property on November 29 , 2013. (N.T. 18-20). Troop e r Ortalano cited the Defendant 

### in March 2014 with Criminal Trespass. (N.T. 23). We found the testimony of Mr. Tasetano and Trooper Ortalano to be credible. Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PMI 

# I [ 

## [ I l.

. .

5 licensed facility, also allows facilities to exercise the common law right to exclude or eject eject any person known to have been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony committed at any issued to the Defendant. In fact , § 1515, in addition to allowing a licensed facility to exclude or a licensed gaming facility). However, § 1515 in no way limits or prohibits the citation that was cited deals with repeat offenders excludable from licensed gaming facilities. (Mt. Airy Casino is Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act, 4 Pa. C.S.A. 

### § 1101 et seq. The section

The Defendant ' s Concise Statement raises an issue under 

### § 1515 of the §3 503(b )(1 ), criminal trespass. Therefore, the facts supporte d the finding that the Defendant was guilty under 18 Pa. 

### C.S.A. testimony indicated the Defendant was banned, had notice, and that he returned to the premises, was banned and informed of the ban, and ifhe returned to the premises thereafter. All of the right to ban or prohibit people from the premises. The only issue is whether or not the Defendant w h en the Defendant was banned, and when he returned to the property. Mt. Airy Casino had the business card s on the premises. There was no restriction placed on the length of time between fi nd Mr. Tas e tano ' s testimony credible that the Defendant was the individual handing out 17, 2010 , and therefore, should not have been banned due to the alleged incident. However, we b e on the property. The Defendant argues he was not present at Mt. Airy Casino

. on December us e d a false identification on November 29, 2013 , as further evidence that he knew he was not to and that th e Defendant was present on the premises on November 29, 2013. The Defendant also was banned from being on the premises in 2010 , that the Defendant had actual notice of such, Super. 2011). Here, the Commonwealth witnesses and the Defendant all testified the Defendant knowledge of a lack of license or privilege to do so. Commonwealth v. Davis, 17 A.3d 390 (Pa.

The crim e of defiant trespass merely requires that a p e rson enter a place with Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM6

permanently, any person disrupting operations. The Defendant's reliance on this section to
. argue there must be repeated offenses in order to exclude him from the property is misplaced.

The Defendant next contends that because each gaming facility has an obligation to develop procedures to identify and provide information to compulsive and problem gambling behavior under 58 Pa. Code §50l(a), he should have been allowed to promote his website. Again, Defendant's reliance on those regulations is misplaced. The Defendant apparently believes that an obligation of a licensee to have policies and procedures in place to handle problem gambling or addictive behavior, gives a private individual free reign to distribute materials on the subject at a licensed facility. That is not what the regulations provide. Neither the Pennsylvania Code, nor any statute, requires Mt. Airy Casino to allow the Defendant to hand out literature, even if it is related 

### to compulsive gambling problems. The Defendant misinterprets the language of the portion of the Code he cited.

The Defendant also argues that the action taken by Mt. Airy Casino violates his constitutional right to freedom of religion since he states his website promotes faith-based treatment for compulsive gamblers. However, a look at the facts of this case shows that the Defendant was not ejected or excluded due to his religious beliefs. Rather, he was excluded because he was identified as handing out literature on privately owned property in violation of an anti-solicitation policy. The Defendant then violated this ban and was on the property again, which constitutes criminal trespass.

We also note that the above matters cited by the Defendant on appeal also take issue with the reason for his exclusion from the Mt. Airy Casino. They do not provide a defense to the fact that he was banned from the premises, received notice of such, and still chose to return to the premises. The charge of criminal trespass does not require review of why a Defendant is Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM7

cc: District Attorney Ruben 

### M. Collazo, 

### pro se DATED: 

### January

7, 2015 the Defendant 

### was guilty of criminal trespass under 

### 18 Pa. 

### C.S.A. §3503 (b)(l). banned from the property, and that he re-entered the property on November 29, 2013. As such, his admission that he had been banned from the property, that he received notice that he was witnesses and testimony for the Commonwealth credible. We found the Defendant credible 

### as to Statement, many of which were not introduced into 

### this case as testimony. We found 

### the

The Defendant also sets forth fourteen (14) paragraphs of "facts" in his Concise receiving notice not to do so. the premises, he committed the crime of defiant trespass by returning to the property after prohibited from being on the property
. Regardless of the reason for the ejectrnent and ban from Circulated 09/25/2015 12:03 PM