Court Opinion

ID: 9911719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 18:09:18.142135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:54.956460
License: Public Domain

J-A24039-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

  STEVE STRAUSS                                :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                       Appellant               :
                                               :
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
  THE MONROE COUNTY DISTRICT                   :   No. 1056 EDA 2023
  ATTORNEY                                     :

               Appeal from the Order Entered December 27, 2022
                In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
                     Civil Division at No(s): 8162 Civil 2022

BEFORE: STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.:                          FILED DECEMBER 20, 2023

       Steve Strauss (“Strauss”) appeals from the order denying his petition to

review the Commonwealth’s disapproval of his private criminal complaint

pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. We affirm.

       The relevant factual and procedural history of this case is as follows.

Strauss filed a private criminal complaint in which he asserted that Fabrizio

Bivona (“Bivona”)1 had voted illegally in the November 2020 presidential

election in Monroe County, Pennsylvania, because, Strauss asserted, Bivona

was not a Monroe County resident, but rather a resident of the state of New

____________________________________________

1 The record does not reveal Strauss’s connection to Bivona.However, in his
brief, Strauss states that Bivona had been previously employed as a police
officer in Pennsylvania and had filed a criminal complaint against Strauss,
resulting in unspecified criminal charges which Strauss asserts were
dismissed. See Strauss’s Brief at 13.
J-A24039-23

Jersey.     See Petition to Review Private Criminal Complaint Rejection,

12/19/22, at ¶¶ 4-6.          The Monroe County District Attorney (“the DA”)

disapproved the complaint. See id. at ¶ 11. The asserted basis was, inter

alia, that Strauss had not first attempted to contact the police about the

matter. See id. at 10.

       Strauss filed a petition for the trial court to review the Commonwealth’s

disapproval. In the petition, Strauss argued that the DA “improperly rejected”

his complaint, though Strauss did not aver that the decision was made with

fraudulent, dishonest, or corrupt purpose, or occurred due to fraud, or was

unconstitutional. See, e.g., id. at ¶ 17.

       The trial court denied Strauss’s petition without a hearing. The court

concluded, in relevant part that: the DA’s decision was rooted in its policy of

rejecting private criminal complaints that had not first been reported to police

for investigation; this decision is within the DA’s discretion; and, finally,

Strauss failed to show that the decision was based on bias, partiality,

prejudice, ill will, manifest unreasonableness, or misapplication of the law.

See Opinion and Order, 12/27/22, at unnumbered 2-3.             Strauss timely

appealed, and both he and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.2

       Strauss raises the following issue for our review:

____________________________________________

2 Strauss originally appealed to the Commonwealth Court; however, that
Court transferred the case to this Court. See Order, No. 72 C.D. 2023,
4/13/23.

                                           -2-
J-A24039-23

       . . . [W]hether the [DA] can require police to investigate a private
       criminal complaint before they investigate it and whether the
       Court of Common Pleas can deny a petition to review a private
       criminal complaint without hearing any arguments on the
       matter[?]

Strauss’s Brief at 7.3

       Our review of an order denying a petition to review the Commonwealth’s

disapproval of a private criminal complaint is “limited to ascertaining the

propriety of the trial court’s actions.”       In re Ajaj, 288 A.3d 94, 110 (Pa.

2023).4

       Strauss argues the trial court erred in denying his petition to review the

DA’s disapproval of his private criminal complaint.         Pennsylvania Rule of

Criminal Procedure 506 provides:

            (A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the
       complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the
       Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without
       unreasonable delay.

              (B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth:

____________________________________________

3 Strauss’s issue corresponds to issues one and three in his concise statement

of errors complained of on appeal. See Concise Statement, 2/24/23, at ¶¶ 1,
3.

4 Formerly, our review was to determine whether the trial court committed an

error of law or abused its discretion. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Brown,
669 A.2d 984, 990 (Pa. Super. 1995) (stating that “our review is limited to
determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error
of law”). However, our Supreme Court has explained that “[t]here is simply
nothing about [its] determination that requires a court of common pleas to
exercise discretion and, as a result, it would be improper for an appellate court
to review a court of common pleas’ determination for an abuse of discretion.”
In re Ajaj, 288 A.3d at 110 n.11. Accordingly, our review is for an error of
law.

                                           -3-
J-A24039-23

                                   ****

            (2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the
      reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant.
      Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas for
      review of the decision.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 506. Our Supreme Court has elaborated:

            A private criminal complaint must, at the outset, set forth a
      prima facie case of criminal conduct. The attorney for the
      Commonwealth is thereafter required to investigate the
      allegations set forth in the private criminal complaint and, based
      on that investigation, render his or her approval or disapproval of
      the private criminal complaint. In so doing, the attorney for the
      Commonwealth has a general and widely recognized power to
      conduct criminal litigation and prosecutions on behalf of the
      Commonwealth, . . . to decide whether and when to prosecute,
      and to decide whether and when to continue or discontinue a case.
      Thus, the attorney for the Commonwealth is permitted to exercise
      sound discretion to refrain from proceeding in a criminal case
      whenever he or she, in good faith, thinks that the prosecution
      would not serve the best interests of the state.

In re Ajaj, 288 A.3d at 97 (internal citations, quotations, and brackets

omitted; ellipses in original). Crucially, while a private criminal complainant

is “entitled to a full and fair opportunity to develop a record of disputed

material facts,” the private criminal complainant “has no right to an

evidentiary hearing . . ..” Id. at 110 n.12 (emphasis added).

      Our Supreme Court has recently established the standard of review for

trial courts to apply when reviewing a prosecutor’s disapproval determination:

      [W]hen reviewing a prosecutor’s decision disapproving a private
      criminal complaint under Rule 506, a court of common pleas
      may only overturn that decision if the private complainant
      demonstrates that the disapproval decision amounted to
      bad faith, occurred due to fraud, or was unconstitutional.
      In so holding, we denounce the prior rubric, where the applicable

                                     -4-
J-A24039-23

       standard of review depended on the asserted basis for the
       prosecutor’s disapproval decision. In addition, for purposes of
       determining whether the prosecutor’s disapproval decision
       amounted to bad faith, we . . .         hold that bad faith is
       demonstrated when the prosecutor acted with a
       fraudulent, dishonest, or corrupt purpose. We note that the
       adoption of the foregoing standard of review ensures that a court
       of common pleas will afford proper deference to the discretionary
       decision of the prosecutor—a member of the executive branch of
       the Commonwealth’s government.

In re Ajaj, 288 A.3d at 109–10 (internal citations omitted; emphases added).

       Strauss maintains the trial court erred in denying his petition. According

to Strauss, the DA was required to investigate the allegations “of a properly

drafted complaint to enable the exercise of his discretion concerning whether

to approve or disprove [sic] the complaint.” Strauss’s Brief at 12. Strauss

argues that the DA disapproved his complaint because Strauss declined to

contact the police first, and this is an “arbitrary and capricious requirement .

. . implemented with no basis in law.” Id.5 Additionally, Strauss asserts the

trial court erred, and violated his due process rights under the 14th

Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, by failing to hold a hearing on his

petition. See id. at 13-14.

       The trial court considered Strauss’s arguments and rejected them:

             Here, [Strauss’s] petition failed to demonstrate that the
       disapproval decision by the [DA] amounted to bad faith, occurred
       due to fraud, or was unconstitutional. [Strauss’s] . . . alleged
____________________________________________

5 Strauss alleges he had not wanted to approach the police because he had

previously been arrested the last time he “interacted with the police and
answered questions for them,” and, therefore, he was distrustful of the police.
Strauss’s Brief at 13.

                                           -5-
J-A24039-23

       errors seemingly do not take into account the Supreme Court’s
       standard set forth in In re Ajaj. As a [C]ourt of [C]ommon
       [P]leas, [this court] may only overturn the DA’s decision if the
       private complainant demonstrates that the disapproval decision
       amounted to bad faith, occurred due to fraud, or was
       unconstitutional. The [p]etition . . . fails to [plead such].

              [Additionally,] . . . a private criminal complainant has no
       right to an evidentiary hearing . . ..

Trial Court Opinion, 3/7/23, at 7 (internal citation and quotations omitted).

       Following our review, we discern no error of law in the trial court’s

decision. Strauss failed to plead in his petition that the DA’s disapproval of

his private criminal complaint was the result of bad faith, occurred due to

fraud, or was unconstitutional. See Ajaj, 288 A.2d at 109.6 To the extent

that Strauss presently asserts on appeal that the DA’s decision was “arbitrary

and capricious,” and, impliedly, in bad faith, we note that Strauss failed to

assert this in his petition filed in the court below. Compare Strauss’s Brief at

12 with Petition, 12/19/22, at ¶¶ 11-18 (asserting merely that the petition

was “improperly rejected” by the DA).            Accordingly, any such argument is

waived. See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (providing that “[i]ssues not raised in the trial

court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”).

       In any event, the DA explained in his notice of disapproval that he

disapproved the private criminal complaint because, inter alia, Strauss failed

to report the matter to police for investigation first. See Notice and Record

____________________________________________

6 We reiterate that “bad faith” is defined as acting with a “fraudulent,
dishonest, or corrupt purpose.” In re Ajaj, 288 A.2d at 109.

                                           -6-
J-A24039-23

of Disapproval, 11/16/22.         As the DA further elaborated, this policy is to

effectuate the efficient use of county resources and, further, because local law

enforcement is better positioned to initially investigate claims, after which,

should police decline to file charges, the complainant may file a private

criminal complaint.      Thereafter, the DA may investigate and review police

reports, evidence, and “other findings . . . when making a decision regarding

charges.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 4. Given the foregoing, Strauss has failed

to   show    he   properly    pleaded     in   his   petition   bad   faith,   fraud,   or

unconstitutionality.      Further, Strauss was not entitled to an evidentiary

hearing, given there was no dispute of material fact about whether Strauss

attempted to first report the matter to police—Strauss concedes he did not.7

Therefore, the trial court committed no error of law in denying his petition.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

7 As noted above, Strauss was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing,
notwithstanding his right to a “full and fair opportunity to develop a record of
disputed material facts.” In re Ajaj, 288 A.2d at 110 n.12 (emphasis
added). While Strauss asserts a 14th Amendment due process challenge
based on the trial court’s denial of his petition without a hearing, his federal
constitutional claim is waived for failure to properly develop it. See J.C.B. v.
Pennsylvania State Police, 35 A.3d 792, 797 (Pa. Super. 2012) (finding
waiver of undeveloped constitutional challenges).

                                           -7-
J-A24039-23

Date: 12/20/2023

                   -8-