Court Opinion

ID: 9388441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 16:11:07.474562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:20.401065
License: Public Domain

J-S38004-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                            :        PENNSYLVANIA
                    Appellant               :
                                            :
                                            :
              v.                            :
                                            :
                                            :
 MEGAN DANIELLE WORZEL                      :   No. 1457 EDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered April 27, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-52-CR-0000098-2021

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

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

      The Commonwealth appeals from the order denying its petition to

terminate the participation of Megan Danielle Worzel (“Worzel”) in the

Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (“ARD”) program.           We quash the

appeal.

      The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history

as follows:

             [I]n . . . October . . . 2020, . . . Worzel . . . was taken into
      custody on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol after
      she collided with an electric pole and left the scene to return home
      and call emergency services. [In] June . . . 2021, [Worzel] was
      granted entry to the Pike County ARD program. [I]n March . . .
      2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion to terminate [Worzel’s]
      admission into the ARD program . . ., alleging that she tested
      positive for consumption of alcohol [in] December . . . 2021, in
      violation of the terms of her ARD supervision. On April 27, 2022,
      following a hearing on the motion, the trial court issued an order
      finding [Worzel] in violation of the terms of the ARD program, but
      denying the Commonwealth’s request to terminate her
      participation in favor of adding an additional ninety (90) days to
J-S38004-22

      her term of ARD supervision.          On April 29, 2022, the
      Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, averring that
      the court was required to terminate [Worzel’s] participation in the
      ARD program. On May 26, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a notice
      of appeal to the Superior Court. On June 3, 2022, the trial court
      denied the motion for reconsideration as moot.          [Both the
      Commonwealth and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.]

Trial Court Opinion, 7/20/22, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).

      The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review: “Whether

the lower court erred in denying the Commonwealth’s motion to terminate

[Worzel] from the ARD program, when it found that she was in violation of

her conditions.”    Commonwealth Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization

omitted).

      Initially, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction over this

appeal.     See Commonwealth v. Baio, 898 A.2d 1095, 1098 (Pa. Super.

2006) (holding that, because the question of appealability implicates the

jurisdiction of this Court, the issue may be raised by this Court sua sponte).

The general rule in Pennsylvania is that a party may appeal only from a final

judgment of sentence, and an appeal from any prior order will be quashed as

interlocutory.   See Commonwealth v. Getz, 598 A.2d 1309, 1310 (Pa.

1991); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742; Pa.R.A.P. 341(a).         A final order is

generally defined as any order that disposes of all claims and of all parties.

See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). The purpose of this rule is to prevent undue delay and

avoid the disruption of criminal cases by piecemeal appellate review.       See

Commonwealth v. Scott, 578 A.2d 933, 941 (Pa. Super. 1990).

                                     -2-
J-S38004-22

       In examining ARD, this Court has explained:

       ARD . . . is a pretrial disposition of certain cases, in which . . . the
       Commonwealth agrees to suspend prosecution for an agreed upon
       period of time in exchange for the defendant’s successful
       participation in a rehabilitation program, the content of which is
       to be determined by the court and applicable statutes.

       . . . [A]fter [a defendant] has completed the program successfully,
       the charges against [her] will be dismissed, upon order of court.
       If [s]he does not complete the ARD successfully, [s]he may be
       prosecuted for the offense with which [s]he was charged. The
       district attorney’s utilization of ARD is optional under the rules.

Commonwealth v. Lebo, 713 A.2d 1158, 1161 (Pa. Super. 1998).

       This Court has determined that an order regarding ARD is a non-

appealable interlocutory order. “An ARD determination provides no exception

to the general rule. Rather, it constitutes a non-final proceeding in which the

resolution of the criminal prosecution is merely held in abeyance. Acceptance

of ARD is an interlocutory matter and consequently is not appealable.” Getz,

598 A.2d at 1310 (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Horn,

172 A.3d 1133, 1137-38 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Getz and quashing

defendant’s appeal from an order denying his petition to withdraw from ARD).1

____________________________________________

1 Rule 311 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure enumerates the
various types of interlocutory orders that are appealable as of right. See
Pa.R.A.P. 311(a), (b), (c). The order in question does not satisfy the criteria
for an appeal as of right under Rule 311(a), (b), or (c). Nevertheless, the
Commonwealth maintains that the trial court’s April 27, 2022 order is
appealable as of right under Rule 311(d) because “the order . . . will terminate
or substantially handicap the prosecution.” See Notice of Appeal, 5/26/22, at
1; see also Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (providing that “[i]n a criminal case, under the
circumstances provided by law, the Commonwealth may take an appeal as of
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -3-
J-S38004-22

       Instantly, Worzel was not convicted of any crime and the trial court did

not impose a judgment of sentence. Rather, Worzel was charged with, inter

alia, two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol and the trial court

admitted her into an ARD program pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3807. Under

these circumstances, and consonant with Getz and Horn, the trial court’s April

27, 2022 order denying the Commonwealth’s motion to terminate Worzel’s

participation in ARD and extending her time in the program is not an

appealable order. See Horn, 172 A.3d at 1137-38; Getz, 598 A.2d at 1310.2

Accordingly, this appeal is not properly before us.

       Appeal quashed.

____________________________________________

right from an order that does not end the entire case where the
Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate
or substantially handicap the prosecution”). Although Rule 311(d) permits an
appeal as of right, prior case law has continually placed limits on the scope of
this right as it pertains to non-evidentiary issues. See Commonwealth v.
Woodard, 136 A.3d 1003, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2016). Thus, this Court will not
accept blindly the Commonwealth’s certification of substantial hardship when
appeal is sought for non-evidentiary interlocutory orders, such as the order in
question. Id. Moreover, in the ARD context, an order is appealable only when
the ARD order disposes of all claims and of all parties in the case. See
Commonwealth v. Boos, 620 A.2d 485 (Pa. 1993) (holding that an order
reinstating defendant’s admission into ARD was a reviewable final order
because it resolved the defendant’s criminal charge, terminated the DUI
charge, and precluded the resumption of prosecution). Here, the April 27,
2022 order did not fully resolve Worzel’s criminal charges or preclude
prosecution of those charges. Instead, it merely held the resolution of the
criminal prosecution in abeyance for an additional ninety days. Thus, the
Commonwealth may not invoke Rule 311(d) to appeal this interlocutory order.

2 Notably, the Commonwealth did not ask for or receive permission to appeal
the interlocutory ARD order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 312, nor has it asserted that
the order could satisfy the collateral order doctrine pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 313.

                                           -4-
J-S38004-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 4/20/2023

                          -5-