J-S14008-17

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.F.W., A 

MINOR

APPEAL OF: D.F.W., A MINOR

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1593 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Dispositional Order September 12, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-JV-0000115-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 21, 2017

Appellant, D.F.W., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order 

entered in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, following his 

adjudication of delinquency on the charge of defiant trespass.1 We affirm. 

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant 

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to 

restate them.

Appellant raises three issues for our review:

WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING 

OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE 

INFRACTION, IF ANY, WAS DE MINIMIS AS [APPELLANT’S] 

ACTIONS WERE WITHIN CUSTOMARY LICENSE AND NO 

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(b)(1)(i). 
J-S14008-17

- 2 -

HARM WAS SUFFERED BY OR THREATENED TO ANY 

PARTY[?]

WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING 

OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE 

PREMISES WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND HE 

REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT A TENANT HAD INVITED 

HIM UPON THE PROPERTY[?]

WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING 

OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE 

TENANTS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE APPELLANT WAS 

CHARGED WITH TRESPASS WERE ENTITLED TO A RIGHT 

OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, WHICH CANNOT BE HONORED IF 

THEIR LANDLORD CAN BAR CERTAIN GUESTS WITHOUT 

PROCESS OR LIMITATION[?]

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).2

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the 

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P. 

Goodman, we conclude Appellant’s remaining issues merit no relief. The 

trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the 

questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 10, 2016 at 

3-6) (finding: (1) evidence showed Appellant had notice on several 

occasions that he was not licensed or privileged to be on Housing Authority 

____________________________________________

2 To the extent Appellant’s issue #3 complains on appeal about a tenant’s 

right to quiet enjoyment, specifically a tenant’s right to invite Appellant on to 

the property as a social guest, Appellant is not the proper party to make that 

argument. See generally In re T.J., 559 Pa. 118, 124, 739 A.2d 478, 481 

(1999) (stating: “In determining whether a party has standing, a court is 

concerned only with the question of who is entitled to make a legal challenge 

and not the merits of that challenge”; “the purpose of the ‘standing’ 

requirement is to insure that a legal challenge is by a proper party”). 

Therefore, we give Appellant’s issue #3 no further attention.
J-S14008-17

- 3 -

property; Appellant admitted he knew he was not permitted on Housing 

Authority property; Corporal Brian Reno credibly testified he had given 

Appellant notice on prior occasions that Appellant was not permitted on 

Housing Authority property, and when Corporal Reno confronted Appellant 

on date of incident, Appellant fled; Appellant violated trespassing statute 

when he entered Housing Authority property; Appellant’s actions did not 

constitute de minimis violation; and (2) Jody Dunnigan, Pottsville Housing 

Authority Deputy Executive Director, testified that property at issue belongs 

to Housing Authority; Housing Authority maintains no-trespass list to protect 

tenants’ peaceful enjoyment of their property; Housing Authority and police 

can enforce no-trespass list; tenants had no right to allow Appellant to go 

anywhere on Housing Authority property; in any event, Appellant was near 

playground on property and was not in tenant’s residence). Accordingly, we 

affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion. 

Dispositional order affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 3/21/2017
C. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the 

Common Pleas decision because the tenants of the property where 

Appellant was charged with trespass were entitled to a right of quiet 

enjoyment, which cannot be honored if their landlord can bar certain 

guests-wi:thot1t-prores ·. 

-· 

[. 

The Appellant raises the following three issues on appeal: 

~;· °;A. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the 

N Co~on Pleas decision because the infractions, if any was de minimis as 

Q. his aitions were within customary license and no harm was suffered by or 

thre~ened to any party. 

0 -I 

..,_J 

e:; 3 B. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the 

,;: Corgnon Pleas decision because the premises was open to the public and 

i3 he.f§asonably believed that a tenant had invited him upon the property. 

V') 

Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. 

Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925. On September 27, 2016, the Appellant filed a 

this Court directed the Appellant file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on 

Court which was served upon this Court. By Order of Court dated September 20, 2016 

or about September 14, 2016, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior 

12, 2016 adjudicating the Appellant delinquent on the charges of Defiant Trespass. On 

The Appellant, D.W. has filed an appeal to this Court's Order dated September 

GOODMAN, J. 

OPINION PURSURANT TO PA R.A.P. 1925 

Eric Lieberman, Esquire -for the Commonwealth 

Karen Domalakes, Esquire -for the Juvenile 

D.W., A JUVENILE 

IN THE INTEREST OF: No. JV-115-2016 

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 

JUVENILE DIVISION 

Circulated 02/22/2017 12:00 PM
O'Hara Housing Complex. Corporal Reno testified that the Appellant and another male 

2 

given to the Appellant which stated that the Appellant is hereby banned from all 

Pottsville Housing Authority properties including but not limited to the John O'Hara 

property was admitted into evidence. 

The Commonwealth also called Corporal Brian Reno of the Pottsville Police 

Department. Corporal Reno testified that the Pottsville Police are provided every other 

week with an updated trespass notice list from the Pottsville Housing Authority of 

individuals who are banned from Housing Authority properties. Corporal Reno testified 

that he had prior knowledge that the Appellant was banned from all Housing Authority 

properties. Corporal Reno testified that he verbally advised the Appellant on numerous 

occasions that he was not to be on Housing Authority property. The Corporal gave the 

Appellant warnings on prior occasions and did not arrest the Appellant. 

Corporal Reno testified that he was on patrol on May 21, 2016 at approximately 

8:29 p.m. when he observed the Appellant at the John O'Hara Housing Authority 

Complex which is a Pottsville Housing Authority property. The Appellant was next to the 

playground which is approximately 30 feet from the steps that enter onto the John 

The Commonwealth presented testimony from Jody Dunnigan, the Deputy 

Executive Director of the Pottsville Housing Authority. Mr. Dunnigan testified that the 

Housing Authority assists income eligible people with housing assistance and the 

Housing Authority owns a number of properties in the City of Pottsville including the 

John O'Hara Complex. Mr. Dunnigan testified that the Housing Authority, as directed by 

HUD, maintains a no trespass list in order to protect the tenants' peaceful enjoyment of 

their property. The Appellant was on the no trespass list. A copy of the notice that was 
3 

(t)crctcrah:nmmunkatron-toi:he-a-ctor-.----------------- 

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed 

or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice 

against trespass is given by: 

(b) Defiant trespasser 

3503. Criminal Trespass 

found guilty of Defiant Trespass under 18 Pa. CS.A. §3503(b) which states as follows: 

and there was not harm suffered by or threatened to any party. The Appellant was 

The first argument made by the Appellant was that his infraction was de minimis 

permitted to be on Pottsville Housing Authority property. 

Complex. On cross examination Mr. Sankus testified that he knew the Appellant wasn't 

they gave permission for the Appellant to go to their townhouse in the John O'Hara 

which is the Housing Authority property. Mr. Sankus and his mother both testified that 

Sankus' mother, Lynn Memeke, who both testified that they live at 667 John O'Hara 

The Appellant presented the testimony of his friend, Josh Sankus and Josh 

be on Housing Authority property. 

not supposed to be on Housing Authority property. The Appellant also testified that he 

examination the Appellant admitted that Corporal Reno was yelling to him that he was 

testified that when he saw the police he walked and he did not run. On cross 

visit his friend Josh Sankus who lived on Housing Authority property. The Appellant 

The Appellant testified that he was playing basketball that day and was going to 

they saw his patrol vehicle. 

ran from the Housing Authority Complex down the steps onto Sanderson Street when 
4 

The evidence clearly shows that the Appellant was given notice that he was not 

licensed or privileged to be on Housing Authority property. Corporal Reno gave the 

Appellant notice on prior occasions that he wasn't to be on Housing Authority property 

and the Appellant admitted that he knew he wasn't to be on Housing Authority 

property. The Appellant violated a criminal statute by trespassing on Housing Authority 

property. Also, when the Appellant was confronted by Corporal Reno about trespassing 

on Housing Authority property the credible testimony of Corporal Reno was that the 

Ap13ellant nm from th6i po.1.i~~e Coi..tr:t-d~A.o.t-ti.r:ld-the 4ppellant~s act~a de 

minimis violation. 

The Appellant's second and third contention is that the Appellant should not be 

cited for trespass because he had permission from one of the tenants living at the John 

O'Hara Complex. The Appellant relies on Branish v. NHP Propertv Management Inc., 

694 A.2d 1106 Pa. Super (1996) for the proposition that a tenant has the right to invite 

social guests to his apartment and the landlord can't interfere with that right. 

In Branish, the landlord, NHP Property Management, Inc., issued a no trespassing 

letter to the boyfriend of one of the tenants because the boyfriend, without invitation, 

entered the tenant's apartment and caused a disturbance and damages at the property. 

The letter indicated that a violation of the letter would be reason to seek eviction of the 

tenant. The tenant filed a motion for declaratory judgment requesting the court find 

the "no trespassing" letter void. The court found the letter void and ordered that the 

landlord was barred from evicting the tenant for violating the letter. 

The court determined that the Landlord and Tenant Act allows the tenant to 

invite soctat g a ests to hts-property-as-long-as-the-ten·a-nt-observes-his-ebHgatier-i<i-. ---- 
5 

Branish.694 A.2d 1107 (citing 68 P.S. §250, 504-a.) The court determined that there is an 

implied covenant of quiet enjoyment in every lease of real property and that any 

wrongful act of the lessor that interferes with the lessee's possession in whole or in part 

is a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Id (citing Lichtenfeis v. Bridgeview Coal 

Compan'(, 366 Pa. Super 304, 531 A.2d 22 (1987). The Court ruled that by preventing 

the tenant from inviting social guests to her townhouse the landlord interfered with the 

tenant's possession. 

---------:tAG-i~-At ,GJse, bot.thJ.o~h..Sa.r.1k~-a,r:id-hi.s-r.i:lo.tller.....tes.1ifi.ecLtbat they gave the 

Appellant permission to be in their townhouse. The Appellant relies on Branish for the 

proposition that as long as the tenants give permission to a third party to be on their 

property then that third party can go anywhere on Housing Authority property that the 

tenant would be able to go. This Court found the instant case distinguishable from 

Branish because the Appellant was not located in the tenant's dwelling. 

The Commonwealth presented testimony from Jody Dunnigan, the Pottsville 

Housing Authority Deputy Executive Director that the John O'Hara Complex is one of 

the public housing projects of the Pottsville Housing Authority. The John O'Hara 

Housing Complex is a 50 Unit Public Housing Complex located in 600 block of Laurel 

Boulevard. The Housing Authority as directed by HUD maintains a no trespass list to 

protect the tenants' peaceful enjoyment of their property. 

The Appellant was given notice on previous occasions that he was not be on 

housing authority property. Corporal Reno testified that he observed the Appellant on 

the John O'Hara property on previous occasions and that he gave the Appellant 

warntng-s:-T-h-e-App-eHant-testified-tha-t-he-knew-he-wasn!.t--te-be-on-Hot1sln~-A1:1-thot~ty---- 
6 

The tenants did not have the right to allow the Appellant to go anywhere on 

Housing Authority property. The Court determined that the Pottsville Housing 

Authority and the Pottsville Police could enforce their no trespass list. The Appellant 

.......... -----v·,v,,va""'s.-1n-t+e"""a-f--tAe--f*-cl¥§f·C:H:1-A4-aR~9t-~A-tA,e-ter:iaf.l:t.'..s-towr.il:io~e-aACL.tber.e.f.o.r:e-the..l:!.ous.irig _ 

Authority and the police did not interfere with the tenant's use of quiet enjoyment of 

their property. 

property. The Court found the testimony of Officer Reno credible that when the 

Appellant was confronted by Officer Reno for being on Housing Authority property the 

Appellant fled from the Housing Authority property down the steps on to Sanderson 

Street.