Court Opinion

ID: 9954563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-26 16:11:20.657975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:53.104168
License: Public Domain

J-S07011-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    JAMES MARIO PRIDGEN                        :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 989 MDA 2023

                  Appeal from the Order Entered June 2, 2023
     In the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-36-CR-0003471-1992

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, P.J.:                           FILED: MARCH 26, 2024

       James Mario Pridgen appeals, pro se, from the order, entered in the

Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, dismissing his motion for

correction or modification of the record pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1926.         We

affirm.1
____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 A request to correct or modify a record pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1926 is a
vehicle used to supplement the certified record on appeal when there are
material omissions or errors in the record. See infra, at 4-7. Instantly,
Pridgen filed the underlying motion to correct/modify the record in the trial
court at our Court’s suggestion. See Order (78 MDA 2023), 5/17/23 (“[T]he
application is hereby DENIED without prejudice to seek relief in the trial
court.”) (emphasis in original); see also James Mario Pridgen’s Letter to Trial
Court Clerk of Courts, 5/31/23 (“I have complied with the Superior Court’s
[5/17/23] Order [and o]n May 20, 2023, I mailed out a Motion [f]or Correction
[o]r Modification [o]f [t]he Record[.]”). Pridgen’s motion was filed in the trial
court in conjunction with his at-the-time pending appeal in 78 MDA 2023.
Since our Court has issued its final decision in that matter, see
Commonwealth v. Pridgen, 305 A.3d 97 (Pa. Super. 2023), Pridgen has no
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S07011-24

       Pridgen is serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility

of parole for committing first-degree murder in 1992. In the years since his

conviction and sentencing, Pridgen exhausted his direct appeal rights and filed

serial petitions under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). See 42 Pa.C.S.A.

§§ 9541-9546. Most recently, on December 22, 2021, Pridgen filed a pro se

PCRA petition; PCRA counsel was appointed.        After the PCRA court issued

Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice of its intent to dismiss Pridgen’s petition without a

hearing, PCRA counsel was permitted to withdraw and Pridgen filed a pro se

response to the trial court’s Rule 907 notice. On December 27, 2022, the

court dismissed Pridgen’s petition without a hearing. On January 9, 2023,

Pridgen filed a pro se notice of appeal to this Court from the denial of his PCRA

petition; that appeal was docketed at 78 MDA 2023. On January 23, 2023,

while his appeal at 78 MDA 2023 was pending, Pridgen filed a motion to correct

the record in the trial court raising several alleged inaccuracies in the trial

____________________________________________

other means of challenging the trial court’s denial of that motion. Ideally,
Pridgen should have been permitted to argue the court’s failure to correct the
record, along with his other appellate issues, in his brief at 78 MDA 2023.
Thus, we find that a breakdown in court processes has occurred and decline
to quash the appeal. See Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.3d 493 (Pa.
Super. 2007) (recognizing power of courts to grant relief in cases of fraud or
breakdown in court operations). See also Order (989 MDA 2023), 12/14/23
(order discharging rule to show cause as to why appeal should not be
quashed; referring issue to merits panel).

                                           -2-
J-S07011-24

court docket with respect to his PCRA proceedings. See Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b)(1).

On January 25, 2023, the trial court denied the motion.2

       On May 11, 2023, at 78 MDA 2023, Pridgen filed a “Motion for Correction

or Modification of Record” in this Court, alleging discrepancies between the

filings in the record inventory list and those filings in the certified record.3 On

May 17, 2023, this Court denied Pridgen’s motion, without prejudice to his

right to seek relief in the trial court, citing Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b)(2).           In

compliance with our Court’s suggestion, on May 25, 2023, Pridgen filed a

“Motion for Correction or Modification of the Record” in the trial court,4 again

requesting the correction of errors in the record inventory list as it related to

filings in the certified record. Notably, at the top of this motion, Pridgen lists

“78 MDA 2023” as the relevant appellate court docket number. See Motion
____________________________________________

2 On February 16, 2023, Pridgen filed a motion in this Court to order the trial

court to provide him with legal correspondence. On February 17, 2023, our
Court denied Pridgen’s motion. On May 1, 2023, Pridgen filed a motion to
compel asking this Court to order the trial court to provide him with a copy of
the inventory list to review. See Pa.R.A.P. 1931(d). On May 3, 2023, our
Court entered an order granting Pridgen’s motion to compel and directing our
Court’s Prothonotary to provide him a copy of the record inventory list.

3 Specifically, Pridgen alleged the following errors, omissions, and corrections

with respect to the entries on the inventory list: no numbers listing other
motions attached to his Rule 907 response (omission); entry of order denying
his “Amended/Petition for Post Conviction Collateral Relief petition” is incorrect
because he never filed an amended petition (correction); court never provided
him order requiring him to file a Rule 1925(b) statement (error); and, court
never provided him “Late Letter” with respect to Rule 1925(b) statement
(error). See Motion for Correction or Modification of Record, 5/11/23, at 1.

4 The trial court incorrectly docketed the motion as a “Motion for Modification

of Sentence.”

                                           -3-
J-S07011-24

for Correction or Modification of the Record, 5/25/23, at 1. The trial court

denied the motion on June 2, 2023. On June 5, 2023, Pridgen filed a pro se

“Motion to Compel a Response to Defendant’s Motion for Correction or

Modification of the Record,” in this Court, arguing that the Commonwealth had

failed to acknowledge his motion to correct the record and alleging that “[t]he

record before the Superior Court must be corrected or modified before [its]

decision.” See Motion to Compel Response, 6/5/23. On June 13, 2023, our

Court “denied the motion as moot in light of this Court’s May 17, 2023,

[o]rder” denying Pridgen’s motion to correct the record.

       On July 10, 2023, Pridgen filed a pro se notice of appeal from the trial

court’s June 2, 2023 order denying his motion to correct the record; that

appeal was docketed at 989 MDA 2023—the instant appellate court docket

number.5 Although the trial court did not order him to do so, Pridgen filed a

pro se Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal.

The Rule 1925(b) statement states:

       Appellant contends that[,] in light of the evidence provided with
       his [m]otion for the correction or modification of the record[, he]
       clearly demonstrated that [he] was not provided any order for a
       [Rule] 1925(b) statement from the Clerk of Courts, and the
       record[] demonstrates that there was no amended PCRA petition
       filed . . . for the Clerk of Courts to [d]ocket as being denied. There
____________________________________________

5 Although Pridgen’s  notice of appeal appears to be untimely filed, the trial
court docket indicates that the order from which Pridgen appeals was only
served on the Commonwealth attorneys and there is no indication that the
order was ever served on Pridgen. Therefore, we may treat the appeal as
being timely filed. See Commonwealth v. Midgley, 289 A.3d 1111, 1117
(Pa. Super. 2023) (where pro se appeal was facially untimely, our Court
declined to quash appeal because trial court docket did not indicate service on
party or date of service).
                                           -4-
J-S07011-24

      was no litigation regarding the Clerk of Courts[’] failure to docket
      the various motions that were provided with [Pridgen’s Rule] 907
      response of September 27, 2022.

Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) Statement (989 MDA 2023), 7/27/23. On appeal, Pridgen

raises the following issue for our consideration: “Whether the trial court’s

conclusion is manifestly unreasonable [and], therefore[,] an abuse of

discretion[?]” Appellant’s Brief, at 2.

      Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926 states:

      (a) If any difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses
      what occurred in the trial court, the difference shall be submitted
      to and settled by that court after notice to the parties and
      opportunity for objection, and the record made to conform to the
      truth.

      (b) If anything material to a party is omitted from the
      record by error, breakdown in processes of the court, or
      accident[,] or is misstated therein, the omission or
      misstatement may be corrected by the following means:

         (1) by the trial court or the appellate court upon
         application or on its own initiative at any time; in the
         event of correction or modification by the trial court,
         that court shall direct that a supplemental record be
         certified and transmitted if necessary; or

         (2) by the parties by stipulation filed in the trial court, in
         which case, if the trial court clerk has already certified the
         record, the parties shall file in the appellate court a copy of
         any stipulation filed pursuant to this rule, and the trial court
         clerk shall certify and transmit as a supplemental record the
         materials described in the stipulation.

      (c) The trial court clerk shall transmit any supplemental
      record required by this rule within 14 days of the order or
      stipulation that requires it.

      (d) All other questions as to the form and content of the record
      shall be presented to the appellate court.

                                      -5-
J-S07011-24

Pa.R.A.P. 1926 (emphasis added).6

       In Commonwealth v. Luckett, 260 A.3d 158 (Pa. Super. 2021)

(Table),7 our Court explained the purpose of Rule 1926 as follows:

       Rule 1926 provides a means to supplement the certified record on
       appeal when something material “is omitted from the record by
       error, breakdown in processes of the court, or accident[.]”
       Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b). The Rule is a tool used to correct clerical
       errors, supplementing the record with transcripts, trial court
       opinions, or other documents that should have been certified for
       our review but were mistakenly omitted.              See, e.g.,
       Commonwealth v. McDonald, []428 A.2d 174 (Pa. Super.

____________________________________________

6 As a general rule, trial courts lose jurisdiction over a case once an appeal is

taken from a final order or, if no appeal is taken, after thirty days elapse
following the entry of a final order. Commonwealth v. Robinson, 837 A.2d
1157 (Pa. 2003); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505 (trial courts do not have power
to modify order after 30 days from date of entry if no appeal from order
taken); see also Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a) (“after an appeal is taken . . . the trial
court or other government unit may no longer proceed further in the matter”).
However, trial courts do have the power “to modify a sentence in order to
amend records, to correct mistakes of court officers or counsel’s
inadvertencies, or to supply defects or omissions in the record[.]”
Commonwealth v. Quinlan, 639 A.2d 1235, 1239 (Pa. Super. 1994)
(citation omitted) (emphasis added). Thus, we find that the trial court did
have jurisdiction to correct the record, to the extent of any mistakes or
omissions that needed to be rectified, despite the fact that an appeal was
pending. This conclusion is particularly supported by the language of Rule
1926 that “[i]f anything material to a party is omitted from the record . . . or
is misstated therein, the omission or misstatement may be corrected . . . by
the trial court at any time.” See Pa.R.A.P. 1926(b)(1); Order (211 WDA
2013), 7/29/13 (Superior Court order denying, without prejudice, defendant’s
motion to modify and correct record where appellant has “right to again seek
supplementation of the record in the lower court as the lower court does have
jurisdiction to correct the record in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1926”); but see
Commonwealth v. Wells, 3137 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. filed Nov. 2, 2023)
(unpublished memorandum decision).
7 See Pa.R.A.P. 126(b) (non-precedential decisions filed after May 1, 2019,

may be cited for their persuasive value).

                                           -6-
J-S07011-24

       1981) (admitting [] jury selection waiver [] erroneously excluded
       from [] certified record).

                                       *       *   *

       We use Rule 1926 to correct omissions from the certified record
       of documents filed in the court below, not to allow the parties to
       expand the record through the addition of new documents. See
       In re F.C. III, [] 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (Pa. 2010) ([] appellate
       courts will not consider issues not presented to [] trial court).

Id. at n.8 (emphasis added). See Commonwealth v. B.D.G., 959 A.2d 362,

372 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“As the explanatory comment to [Pa.R.A.P.] 1931

indicates, if counsel (or a party) discovers that anything material has been

omitted from the certified record, the omission can be corrected pursuant to

Rule [] 1926.”) (emphasis added).8

____________________________________________

8 In Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 244 A.3d 359 (Pa. 2021), our Supreme

Court explained that litigants have “procedures provided by our Rules of
Criminal and Appellate Procedure for the correction of . . . errors” in the
record. Id. at 370. Specifically, the Court references Pa.R.Crim.P. 115(C), a
rule providing that “[a]t any time before an appeal is taken[,] the
transcript may be corrected and the record may be corrected or modified, in
the same manner as provided by Rules 1922(c) and 1926 of the
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 115(C). Thus,
it is evident that there are different rules employed to correct or modify
records when a case is in the trial court versus in the appellate court while an
appeal is pending. Rule 1926 was intended to “provide[] an appellant with
the opportunity to eliminate potentially troublesome impediments to
appellate review by making necessary corrections or modifications to
the record on appeal once the record is lodge with the appellate
court.”    Pennsylvania Appellate Practice, Record, Darlington, McKeon,
Schucker, Brown and Kirkpatrick, Volume 20A, § 1926:7, at 493 (2023-2024
ed.). See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 115, Comment (“Paragraph (C) provides a
method for correcting transcripts and correcting or modifying the record
before appeal by incorporating Pa.R.A.P. 1922(c) and Pa.R.A.P. 1926, which
otherwise apply only after an appeal has been taken.”) (emphasis
added).

                                           -7-
J-S07011-24

         Pridgen contends that he filed the instant motion to correct the record

in the trial court where there were “[o]missions, clerical errors, and [the]

listing of an order that never transpired, and [the] documentation of orders,

and [a] letter never provided to [him.]” Appellant’s Brief, at 4. In particular,

Pridgen asserts that “no orders for a [Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)] concise statement

[of errors complained of on appeal] w[ere] ever provided to him, nor the late

letter.” Id. at 6.

   In the motion to correct/modify, Pridgen raised the following claims of

error:

   •     No mention of the three motions he attached to his Rule 907 response;
   •     List #1669 (order denying “Amended-Petition” for Post-Conviction-
         Relief) – no amended petition was ever filed;
   •     List #168 (Rule 1925(b) order) – trial court never sent order to him;
   •     List #17910 (“Late Letter”) – never sent to him

Pridgen’s Motion to Correct/Modify Record, 5/25/23.       Pridgen’s contentions

are directly related to his appeal at 78 MDA 2023—the collateral appeal of the

trial court’s December 27, 2023 order denying his PCRA petition.         As we

previously indicated, see supra at n.1, our Court decided that appeal on

October 24, 2023.11       See Commonwealth v. Pridgen, 305 A.3d 97 (Pa.

Super. 2023).      Accordingly, we conclude that since our Court was able to
____________________________________________

9 Pridgen incorrectly refers to this as docket entry #166, when, in fact, it is

#165.

10 Pridgen incorrectly refers to this as docket entry #178, when, in fact, it is

#179.

11 Notably, our Court’s decision in 78 MDA 2023, was decided over four months

after the trial court denied Pridgen’s instant motion to correct/modify the
record.
                                           -8-
J-S07011-24

dispose of Pridgen’s claims on their merits in his collateral appeal at 78 MDA

2023, any alleged mistakes or inaccuracies in the record were not material

such as to require correction for purposes of appellate review pursuant to Rule

1926. See Luckett, supra; B.D.G., supra.

      Pridgen first contends that the record needed to be corrected because

the court did not mention the three motions he attached to his Rule 907

response. In 78 MDA 2023, our Court acknowledged Pridgen had filed three

pro se motions “asserting the same issues raised in his Rule 907 response.”

Pridgen, 305 A.3d at 101 n.3. Moreover, the panel concluded that the trial

court should have addressed the claims Pridgen asserted in his response to

the trial court’s Rule 907 notice. Id. at 102. However, our Court ultimately

concluded that Pridgen was not entitled to relief on those claims because his

petition did not qualify for a timeliness exception. Id. Thus, we find no merit

to this claim.

      Moreover, Pridgen’s claim that the court’s docket entry at #166 must

be corrected because it states “Order Denying Amended-Petition for Post

Conviction Collateral Relief” and he did not file an amended petition, is likewise

meritless. The order entered in the record dismissing Pridgen’s PCRA petition

properly does not refers to his petition as an amended petition. See Order,

12/27/23 (“the Defendant’s PCRA Petition is DISMISSED without a hearing”)

(emphasis in original).

      With regard to Pridgen’s claim that the trial court failed to send him the

order requiring him to file a Rule 1925(b) statement, we note that our Court’s

                                      -9-
J-S07011-24

decision at 78 MDA 2023 also disposed of this claim to his benefit. Specifically,

our Court declined to find waiver where the PCRA court docket did not reflect

that the order had been served upon Pridgen and, thus,“[he] cannot be faulted

for failing to comply with an order that was never sent to him.” See Pridgen,

305 A.2d at 101 n.4; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).

      Finally, Pridgen’s argument that the record must be corrected so that

he can be served the “Late Letter,” #179 on the trial court docket, entitles

him to no relief. The “Late Letter” to which Pridgen refers is a letter, dated

April 13, 2023, from the trial judge, the Honorable Dennis E. Reinaker, to the

Superior Court Deputy Prothonotary.            In that letter, Judge Reinaker

acknowledges that a duplicative appeal had been filed and that the trial court

was under the impression that the appeal at 78 MDA 2023 was no longer

active. See In re: 78 MDA 2023 Letter (Lancaster Co. Docket 3471-1992),

4/13/23. Judge Reinaker also notifies our Court’s Deputy Prothonotary that

the “record will be sent to the Superior Court as soon as possible.” Id. To

the extent that Pridgen claims the court must correct the record and send him

notice of this letter, we find no merit to this claim. The letter merely concerns

administrative matters relating to the trial court’s delay in sending the certified

record to this Court for purposes of his appeal in 78 MDA 2023, of which this

Court has fully disposed.

                                      - 10 -
J-S07011-24

       Order affirmed.12

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 03/26/2024

____________________________________________

12 The Commonwealth has not filed an Appellee’s brief on appeal and, instead,

“rel[ies] upon Judge Reinaker’s thorough and well-reasoned Pa.R.A.P.
1925[(a) o]pinion, filed on August 8, 2023.” See Letter, 1/25/24. However,
the trial court’s opinion, a mere two-pages in length, with citations to
boilerplate standards of review and a single procedural rule, falls woefully
short of being “thorough and well-reasoned.” In fact, the trial court provides
no reasoning or rationale for its decision to deny Pridgen’s motion to
correct/modify the record.
                                          - 11 -