J. S55024/16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

: PENNSYLVANIA

:

:

v. :

:

THOMAS W. OLICK :

:

Appellant : No. 367 EDA 2016

Appeal from the Order January 22, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-SA-0000311-2015

 

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY DUBOW, J.: FILED AUGUST 04, 2016

Appellant, Thomas W. Olick, appeals pro se from the Order entered in 

the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas on January 22, 2016, 

denying his “Motion in Opposition to the Piling on of Fees.” We quash.

On November 5, 2015, Magisterial District Judge Grifo convicted 

Appellant of one count of Harassment1and sentenced Appellant to pay $354 

in costs and fines. On November 12, 2015, Appellant filed, in the Court of 

Common Pleas of Northampton County, a Notice of Appeal from Summary 

Criminal Conviction and a Petition to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The trial 

court granted Appellant’s In Forma Pauperis Petition that day.

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. 2709(a)(1).
J. S55024/16

- 2 -

On December 30, 2015, the trial court entered an order indicating that 

it received a Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal,2and ordering that the appeal is 

withdrawn. On January 4, 2016, the trial court entered another order 

reiterating that the Appellant had withdrawn the appeal and that the 

sentence issued by the Magisterial District Judge remains in full force and 

effect.

On January 5, 2016, notwithstanding that Appellant had withdrawn his 

appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, he filed a “Motion and Brief in 

Opposition to the Piling on of Fees.” The trial court held a hearing on 

Appellant’s Motion on January 15, 2016, and on January 22, 2016, it denied 

Appellant’s Motion. In its January 22, 2016 Order, the trial court stated 

that, “[Appellant] is required to pay the amount of $384.003as a result of 

his summary conviction [ ], and the subsequent appeal and withdrawal of 

the summary appeal [ ]. [Appellant] shall comply with the payment 

agreement, requiring payments of $25.00 per month, which [Appellant] 

executed on December 28, 2015.” Trial Ct. Order, 1/22/16. This appeal 

followed.

 

2 Appellant’s Notice of Withdrawal of Appeal does not appear on the trial 

court docket.

3 This amount is $30 more than Appellant’s Judgment of Sentence. The 

Commonwealth explained that there is a “$30 difference between the 

magistrate fees and the actual costs [the Court of Common Pleas] 

assessed[,] . . . even though [Appellant withdrew] the appeal.” N.T., 

1/15/16, at 5-7.
J. S55024/16

- 3 -

As a prefatory matter, we consider whether we have jurisdiction over 

this appeal, and conclude we do not. Appellant filed his “Motion and Brief in 

Opposition to the Piling on of Fees” after he withdrew his appeal to the Court 

of Common Pleas. By withdrawing his appeal, Appellant divested the Court 

of Common Pleas of jurisdiction to adjudicate matters arising from his 

summary conviction, including the financial aspect of his Judgment of 

Sentence. Accordingly, the trial court was without the authority to consider 

Appellant’s Motion, and the order entered on January 22, 2016, is a nullity. 

See Bancorp Group, Inc. v. Pirgos, Inc., 744 A.2d 791, 792 (Pa. Super. 

2000) (stating action taken by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity). 

Because the Court of Common Pleas lacked the authority to enter the 

January 22, 2016 Order, rendering it a legal nullity, there is no order on the 

docket from which Appellant could appeal to this Court. See 

Commonwealth v. Garcia, 43 A.3d 470, 478 (Pa. 2012); 42 Pa.C.S. § 742. 

We, therefore, quash this appeal. See Garcia, 43 A.3d at 478.

Appeal quashed. Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 8/4/2016

 
J. S55024/16

- 4 -