IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Urve Maggitti, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 15 M.D. 2024

: SUBMITTED: July 5, 2024

Hon. John P. Capuzzi, Sr., in his official :

capacity; Hon. Bret M. Binder, in his :

official capacity; Hon. John Hall, in his :

official capacity; Christopher DeBarren :

Sarobe, District Attorney, in his official :

capacity; Daniel E. Roland, Assistant :

District Attorney, in his official :

capacity; and Santina R. Pescatore, :

Assistant DA, in official capacity, :

Respondents :

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM FILED: September 3, 2024

Before the Court for disposition are the preliminary objections of 

Judicial Respondents1to the petition for review filed by Petitioner, Urve Maggitti. 

Notwithstanding the fact that District Attorney Respondents2 did not file preliminary 

objections, we sustain Judicial Respondents’ preliminary objections and dismiss the 

petition for review with prejudice as to all Respondents.

The above-captioned matter pertains to Petitioner’s underlying criminal 

case, Commonwealth v. Urve Maggitti (C.C.P. Chester Cnty., No. CP-15-CR1

Judicial Respondents include the following common pleas court judges: Honorable John P. 

Capuzzi, Sr.; Honorable Bret M. Binder; and Honorable John Hall.

2 District Attorney Respondents include: Christopher DeBarren Sarobe, District Attorney

(DA); Daniel E. Roland, Assistant DA; and Santina R. Pescatore, Assistant DA.
2

0001735-2023), which resulted from her charge for the unlawful use of an audio or 

video device in court pursuant to Section 5103.1(a) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. 

§ 5103.1(a). According to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas docket 

entries, the criminal case has been adjudicated.

3

 A verdict of guilty was entered 

April 24, 2024, with Petitioner scheduled to be sentenced on July 18, 2024.

In this Court, Petitioner filed a January 18, 2024 “Emergency 

Petition/Motion to Vacate Void Orders/Judgment and Emergency Injuncti[ve]

Relief” (petition for review) seeking an order reversing the January 9, 2024 order of 

the trial court mandating that she appear at the sheriff’s office on or before January 

19, 2024, for fingerprinting and processing and stating that her failure to appear 

would result in the issuance of a bench warrant. In addition, she requested that this 

Court stay her criminal case pending our decision on the petition for review, declare 

all orders entered in that criminal case null and void, and dismiss the criminal case 

with prejudice. To the extent that Petitioner sought emergency relief in the petition

for review, we denied her request. In addition, we concluded that we lacked 

jurisdiction to hear claims pertaining to the criminal case.

On January 19, 2024, Petitioner filed an “Emergency Motion to Stay 

the Fingerprinting Order” (emergency motion) requesting that this Court issue an 

immediate order staying the trial court’s January 9, 2024 order. We denied the 

emergency motion.

In February 2024, Judicial Respondents filed preliminary objections 

alleging that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims regarding her 

underlying criminal case, Petitioner may not collaterally attack criminal proceedings 

3

https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/CaseSearch (last visited August 30, 2024).
3

in a civil action, her petition for review fails to state a claim, and her claims are 

moot.4

We first turn to the claim that this Court lacks jurisdiction. As we 

earlier stated: “To the extent that Petitioner’s [p]etition [for review] seeks a stay of 

the criminal proceedings and reversal of the orders issued therein, Petitioner seeks a 

writ of prohibition[.]” Jan. 19, 2024 Mem. and Order at 2. Pursuant to Section 

761(c) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(c), this Court’s “original jurisdiction 

to issue writs of prohibition extends only where such relief is ancillary, or 

subordinate, to a matter within the Court’s appellate jurisdiction.” Id. at 2-3. As our

docket reflects, Petitioner does not have a pending appeal stemming from the 

underlying proceedings or any other matter within our appellate jurisdiction. 

Consequently, we lack original jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition.

In addition, Petitioner as a criminal defendant may not collaterally 

attack her criminal proceedings in a civil action. Guarrasi v. Scott, 25 A.3d 394, 

402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). Moreover, because the underlying criminal case was 

adjudicated, the instant case is now moot. “[A]n actual case or controversy must be 

extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Pub. 

Defender’s Office of Venango Cnty. v. Venango Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, 893 

A.2d 1275, 1279 (Pa. 2006).

4 When considering preliminary objections:

[T]he court must accept as true all well-pled allegations of material 

fact as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. 

However, the court need not accept conclusions of law or 

expressions of opinion. For preliminary objections to be sustained, 

it must appear with certainty that the law will not permit recovery, 

and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the non-moving party.

Commonwealth v. Richmond Twp., 917 A.2d 397, 400 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
4

Accordingly, we sustain Judicial Respondents’ preliminary objections 

and dismiss the petition for review with prejudice as to all Respondents.

President Judge Cohn Jubelirer did not participate in the decision for this case.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Urve Maggitti, :

Petitioner :

:

 v. : No. 15 M.D. 2024

:

Hon. John P. Capuzzi, Sr., in his official :

capacity; Hon. Bret M. Binder, in his :

official capacity; Hon. John Hall, in his :

official capacity; Christopher DeBarren :

Sarobe, District Attorney, in his official :

capacity; Daniel E. Roland, Assistant :

District Attorney, in his official :

capacity; and Santina R. Pescatore, :

Assistant DA, in official capacity, :

Respondents :

PER CURIAM O R D E R

AND NOW, this 3

rd day of September, 2024, the preliminary objections 

filed by Judicial Respondents are SUSTAINED, and the petition for review filed by 

Petitioner, Urve Maggitti, is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice as to all 

Respondents.