IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ernest Morrison, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Department of Corrections, : No. 2002 C.D. 2016

Respondent : Submitted: April 21, 2017

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: May 23, 2017

Ernest Morrison (Morrison), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the 

Pennsylvania Office of Open Records’ (OOR) November 22, 2016 Final 

Determination denying his appeal from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ 

(DOC) denial of his Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1request (Request). The sole issue 

before this Court is whether the OOR properly denied the Request.

2

 Upon review, we 

affirm.

Morrison is serving a life sentence without parole as an inmate at the 

State Correctional Institution at Dallas (SCI-Dallas). On September 28, 2016, 

Morrison submitted the Request to DOC’s RTKL Office seeking: “A true and correct 

copy of the ‘Written Judgment of Sentence Order’ [(Sentencing Order)] which 

 

1 Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.

2

In his Statement of Questions Involved, Morrison sets forth the following issues: (1) 

whether DOC erred by committing him without a proper and legal sentencing order; (2) whether the 

sentencing court erred by failing to provide a proper and legal sentencing order to DOC; and, (3) 

whether the sentencing court erred by imposing a life sentence without parole in the absence of 

statutory authority to do so. However, because these issues relate to Morrison’s sentencing and not 

his Request, they are not properly before this Court.
2

contains (1) the Judge[’]s [s]ignature; (2) [t]he [s]tate [he] was [s]entenced under and 

(3) [t]he [s]tatutory [a]uthorization [] for the following [D]ocket No(s) CP # 171 & 

172/1973.” Certified Record (C.R.) Item 1 at 4. By October 13, 2016 letter,3 DOC’s 

RTKL Office denied the Request for the following reason: “The record(s) that you 

requested do not currently exist in the possession of [DOC].” C.R. Item 1 at 3. 

On October 26, 2016, Morrison appealed from the denial to the OOR, 

arguing: (1) the denial “is an err[or;]” (2) the Sentencing Order is needed to 

determine whether he is lawfully committed to DOC’s custody; (3) the admission that 

the Sentencing Order does not exist supports his claim that he is being unlawfully 

held; (4) the denial was confusing and misleading, since it should have been 

presented to DOC as proof of his conviction and sentencing; and, (5) “[t]here is an 

encroachment into [Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure] 114; [Sections 9753, 

9736 and 9764 of the Sentencing Code,] 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9753, 9736, & 9764 (inter 

alia), and a person does not run a foul [sic] of the law unless he/she violates a specific 

statute[.]” C.R. Item 1 at 2. 

 By November 2, 2016 letter, DOC notified OOR of its position:

Diane Yale [(Yale)], Records Supervisor at SCI[-]Dallas, 

located [Morrison’s April 17, 1974 Adult Male 

Commitment Form,] the attached ‘court commitment form.’ 

However, to the extent the court commitment form is not 

responsive, [DOC] included an attestation from [] Yale 

attesting that following a reasonable search[,] no other 

responsive records exist [(Affidavit)].[] Since the requested 

records do not exist within the possession, custody, or 

control of [DOC], [DOC] responded appropriately.

C.R. Item 3 at 1. Morrison did not challenge the Affidavit. See C.R. Item 4 at 1. On 

 

3 On September 29, 2016, the RTKL Office extended its final response date to November 4, 

2016. See C.R. Item 1 at 4.
3

November 22, 2016, the OOR issued the Final Determination denying Morrison’s

appeal, stating:

Under the RTKL, an affidavit may serve as sufficient 

evidentiary support for the nonexistence of records. See 

Sherry v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3d 515, 520-21 (Pa.

C[mwlth.] 2011); Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 

A.2d 907, 909 (Pa. C[mwlth.] 2010). In the absence of any 

competent evidence that [DOC] acted in bad faith or that 

records exist in the possession of [DOC], ‘the averments in

[the [A]ffidavit] should be accepted as true.’ McGowan v. 

Pa. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 103 A.3d 374, 382-83 (Pa. 

C[mwlth.] 2014) (citing Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 

65 A.3d 1095, 1103 (Pa. C[mwlth.] 2013)). Based on the 

evidence provided, [DOC] has met its burden of proving 

that no records exist in [DOC’s] possession, custody or 

control.[FN]1 Accordingly, the appeal is denied.

[FN]1. While [DOC] does not possess the requested 

sentencing orders, there exists a common law right 

of access to judicial records. Commonwealth v. 

Upshur, 924 A.2d 642 (Pa. 2007). The common 

law right of access to public judicial records and 

documents arose from the presumption that judicial 

proceedings will be open to the public. As the 

Supreme Court has stated, ‘[i]t is clear that the 

courts of this country recognize a general right to 

inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.’ Nixon v. 

Warner [Commc’ns], Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 591 (1978) 

(footnotes omitted). The Pennsylvania Supreme 

Court has viewed the common law right of access 

as compelled by many of the considerations that 

underlie the presumption of public trials. See 

Commonwealth v. Fenstermaker, 530 A.2d 414, 

417-18 (Pa. 1987). The records sought, if they 

exist, may be requested from the issuing court. 

C.R. Item 4 at 1-2. Morrison appealed to this Court.4

 

4

“[A] reviewing court, in its appellate jurisdiction, independently reviews the OOR’s orders 

and may substitute its own findings of fact for that of the agency.” Moore, 992 A.2d at 909 n.5 

(quoting Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813, 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)[, aff’d, 75 A.3d 
4

On appeal to this Court, Morrison does not challenge the OOR’s Final 

Determination, but rather “attempts to raise a due process challenge to his continued 

confinement. According to [Morrison], if the record does not exist, then his 

confinement is invalid because it is illegal for the [DOC] to hold him without a 

signed judgment of sentence.” Moore, 992 A.2d at 909-10; see Morrison Pet. for 

Review, see also Morrison Br. at 5-6. In fact, Morrison’s brief concludes with the 

following disclaimer:

IT IS NOT AND WAS NOT THIS PETITIONER’S INTENTION OR 

AIM TO APPEAL THE FINDINGS OF [DOC’S] [RTKL] OFFICE 

OR THE [OOR] STATING THAT THE [SENTENCING ORDER] IS 

NOT IN [THE DOC’s] POSSESSION[,], IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HIS 

AIM TO CHALLENGE HIS DETENTION AND CONFINEMENT BEING 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WITHOUT THIS LAWFUL DOCUMENT[.] 

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT [DOC’s] AFFIDAVIT 

SUPPORTS HIS CLAIMS. 

Morrison Br. at 27 (emphasis added).

In Moore, this Court held that “an appeal from an OOR order denying 

[an inmate’s] request for access to a public record is not the proper forum to 

challenge the constitutionality of his continued incarceration.” Id. at 910 

(emphasis added); see also Scott v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr. (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 133 C.D. 

2016, filed January 27, 2017) (“It is not the Court’s role to help a litigant find a 

document or to review the legality of a criminal prosecution or conviction.”) Slip op.

at 3; Whitaker v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr. (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1781 C.D. 2012, filed March 8, 

2013) (“[T]he RTKL is not a vehicle through which an individual can collaterally 

attack the legality of his criminal confinement. The RTKL does not contain any 

 

453 (Pa. 2013)] . . . . “[A] court reviewing an appeal from an OOR hearing officer is entitled to the 

broadest scope of review.” Id. (quoting Bowling, 990 A.2d at 820). 

On April 24, 2017, Morrison filed an “Objection to [DOC’s] Brief,” which the Court will 

treat as a reply brief.
5

statutory provisions or procedures providing an individual with a right or avenue to 

declare his underlying judgment of sentence a legal nullity.”) Slip op. at 3-4.

5

Because in this case Morrison does not challenge the OOR’s denial of 

his appeal, but rather seeks relief outside the RTKL, this Court must affirm the 

OOR’s Final Determination.6 Based on the foregoing, the OOR’s Final 

Determination is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

 

5 We acknowledge that this Court’s unreported memorandum opinions may be cited “for 

[their] persuasive value, but not as a binding precedent.” Section 414(a) of the Commonwealth 

Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a). Because Scott and Whitaker

involved substantially similar circumstances to the instant case, the Court’s reasoning therein is 

persuasive to the current action.

6 Despite that Morrison’s appeal to the OOR was based primarily upon his claims that he is 

being unlawfully incarcerated, Morrison also included therein that the Request was improperly 

denied on the basis that DOC did not possess the Sentencing Order. See C.R. Item 1 at 2. 

Accordingly, the OOR’s Final Determination properly addressed that issue. Finding no error in the 

OOR’s analysis, had Morrison appealed that issue to this Court, we would have affirmed the Final 

Determination. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Ernest Morrison, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Department of Corrections, : No. 2002 C.D. 2016

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 23

rd day of May, 2017, the Pennsylvania Office of 

Open Records’ November 22, 2016 Final Determination is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge