Court Opinion

ID: 9901347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 17:15:07.133129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:31.282902
License: Public Domain

J-S37038-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 IN RE: OTHER                              :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                           :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                           :
 APPEAL OF: AISHA BRADLEY                  :
                                           :
                                           :
                                           :
                                           :
                                           :   No. 583 EDA 2023

               Appeal from the Order Entered January 25, 2023
             In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
                 Criminal Division at CP-51-MD-0003368-2021

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM:                           FILED NOVEMBER 21, 2023

      Aisha Bradley (Appellant) appeals pro se from the order denying her

petition to refer private criminal complaint to a special investigations panel or,

in the alternative, ask for intervention by the Pennsylvania Attorney General.

We affirm.

      This case originated when Appellant filed a private criminal complaint

concerning real property owned by Patricia Simon, her 70-year-old friend.

Appellant alleged she had been appointed as Ms. Simon’s agent pursuant to a

power of attorney (POA). As this Court previously described,

      [r]ather than follow the normal channels for filing her complaint
      with the [district attorney (]DA[)] in person, [Appellant] was
      asked to submit hers by e-mail, as the assistant district attorney
      who spoke with [Appellant] … over the telephone found her
      “extremely difficult to deal with” and did not wish “to submit [the
      DA’s] intake workers to what [he] was experiencing,” which he
      described as “bullying to an unprofessional degree.” N.T. Hearing,
      12/7/21, at 42-43. The trial court described [Appellant’s] efforts
      as “over the top and well beyond just communicating and
J-S37038-23

      exercising your right as a citizen to hold elected officials and public
      servants accountable.” Id. at 48….

In re Other, 293 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 2023) (unpublished memorandum at

1-2 n.1). The Philadelphia District Attorney refused to prosecute the private

criminal complaint for the following reasons:

      Prosecutorial discretion. Judicial economy. Intent on behalf of
      the accused parties unclear. Matters not appropriate for a private
      criminal complaint. Complainant advised to seek remedy in civil
      court.

Id. (unpublished memorandum at 3).

      Appellant unsuccessfully appealed the disapproval of the private

criminal complaint to the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Thereafter, Appellant

appealed to the trial court. At a December 7, 2021, hearing, the trial court

directed Appellant to produce the POA authorizing her to proceed on behalf of

Ms. Simon. N.T., 12/7/21, at 13-14. The next day, Appellant produced a 10-

page document which lacked an original signature and was otherwise

defective.   N.T., 12/8/21, at 5.       Accordingly, the trial court dismissed

Appellant’s appeal for lack of standing. Id. Thus began Appellant’s odyssey

of filings and appeals.

                          Appeal at 393 EDA 2022

      Appellant appealed the trial court’s order at docket number 393 EDA

2022 (No. 393). The trial court directed Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)

concise statement of matters complained of on appeal. Appellant responded

                                       -2-
J-S37038-23

by filing numerous documents, prompting the trial court to issue the following

order:

      [I]t is hereby ORDERED that the Appellant[] is not permitted to
      send any further emails, or other written communications of any
      kind directly to the undersigned judge or her judicial staff related
      to the above-captioned matter.

      It is hereby further ORDERED that Appellant[] is not permitted to
      make any further phone calls directly to the undersigned judge’s
      chambers or her judicial staff related to the above-captioned
      matter.

      It is hereby further ORDERED that Appellant[] shall limit her
      communications to the undersigned judge, or her judicial staff to
      the filing of pleadings related to the orders issued by the court
      pursuant to Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
      Procedure.

Trial Court Order, 3/17/22 (capitalization modified).

      Appellant filed her concise statement on March 23, 2022.        Although

Appellant claimed she was hindered by the lack of recordings of the hearings,

she filed a 172-paragraph statement spanning 300 pages. In re Other (No.

393) (unpublished memorandum at 5).          The trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P.

1925(a) opinion (1) deeming Appellant’s claims waived for failure to comply

with its order requiring a concise statement; and (2) concluding Appellant

lacked standing to appeal. Trial Court Opinion, 5/6/22, at 4-6.

      On appeal, Appellant “continued in the same vein, filing more than thirty

applications, all of which were denied.” In re Other (No. 393) (unpublished

memorandum at 6). On May 18, 2023, this Court entered an order prohibiting

Appellant from further frivolous filings and attempts to personally contact

                                     -3-
J-S37038-23

members of the judicial panel. Order, 393 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. May 15,

2023). We ultimately dismissed the appeal, reasoning that Appellant

     declined to file (1) a concise statement of errors complained of on
     appeal, instead overwhelming the trial court with an unduly
     lengthy and repetitive statement replete with extraneous
     information; and (2) an appellate brief that conforms with Rules
     2119 and 2135(a)(1), instead providing a mere fourteen pages of
     argument for more than one hundred questions stated over fifty-
     two pages, without indicating which questions are encompassed
     by which portions of the argument. These rules violations have
     hampered our ability to conduct meaningful review of the
     substance of this appeal ….

In re Other (No. 393) (unpublished memorandum at 9). This Court denied

Appellant’s reargument petition on May 9, 2023.

                        Appeal at 2100 EDA 2022

     In the interim, on March 11, 2022, Appellant requested audio recordings

of the notes of testimony from the trial court’s December 7-8, 2022, hearings.

The trial court denied the motion on the basis that Appellant had received

transcripts of the hearings. Trial Court Order, 3/17/22. On June 29, 2022,

Appellant filed a motion for extraordinary relief, repeating her request for

audio recordings. The trial court denied the motion without prejudice. Trial

Court Order, 7/8/22. Appellant appealed from the trial court’s order denying

her motion for extraordinary relief at No. 2100 EDA 2022 (No. 2100).

     This Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal at No. 2100 for the following

reasons:

     Appellant filed the underlying motion for audio recordings, as well
     as her response to this Court’s Rule to show cause order, while
     her prior appeal [at 393 EDA 2022] was pending. That appeal

                                    -4-
J-S37038-23

       concluded, however, when the prior panel dismissed her appeal
       and, on May 9, 2023, denied her petition for reargument.
       Accordingly, the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s appeal from
       the Municipal Court has not been disturbed. In other words,
       there is no currently open matter at this trial court docket.

       … Furthermore, we emphasize the trial court found Appellant
       lacked standing to bring the private criminal complaint — and this
       conclusion has likewise not been disturbed. Accordingly, we
       dismiss the appeal.

In re Other, No. 2100 EDA 20221 (Pa. Super. filed 6/22/23) (unpublished

memorandum at 7-8) (emphasis added).

                Appellant’s Current Appeal at 583 EDA 2023

       On January 17, 2023, while Appellant’s appeal at No. 2100 was pending,

Appellant filed in the trial court a “Petition for Specialized Review.” Appellant

asked that “a Special Investigative Counsel” review the prosecutor’s decision

to deny her private criminal complaint. Petition, 1/17/23, at 1. Appellant

further asked the trial court to request the intervention of the state attorney

general. Id. On January 25, 2023, the trial court issued the following order:

       [U]pon consideration of [Appellant’s] Petition …, and any response
       thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that the Petition is
       DENIED, in that this matter is on appeal with the Superior Court.

Trial Court Order, 1/25/23 (emphasis in original). Appellant timely appealed.

Both Appellant and the trial court have complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

____________________________________________

1 2023 Pa. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1552, 2023 WL 4115890.

                                           -5-
J-S37038-23

      In her statement of questions involved, Appellant presents 12 issues.

Issues 1 through 4 challenge the trial court’s refusal to grant her motion to

appoint a special counsel or request the intervention of the state attorney

general. Appellant’s Brief at 22. Issues 5 through 12 challenge this Court’s

refusal to transfer the matter to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Id. at 23.

      The argument section of Appellant’s brief fails to comport with our Rules

of Appellate Procedure. See Commonwealth v. Blakeney, 108 A.3d 739,

766 (Pa. 2014) (“Although the courts may liberally construe materials filed by

a pro se litigant, pro se status confers no special benefit upon a litigant, and

a court cannot be expected to become a litigant’s counsel”). While Appellant

identifies 12 issues, see id. at 22-23, her argument is not “divided into as

many parts as there are questions to be argued[.]”           Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a).

Instead, Appellant’s argument spans 11 pages, and lacks headings “at the

head of each part[.]” Id.; see Appellant’s Brief at 63-74.

      Appellant challenges the trial court’s legal conclusion that it lacked

authority to appoint a special counsel or seek the attorney general’s

intervention while the appeal at No. 393 was pending. Appellant’s Brief at 63.

As with all questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope

of review is plenary. In re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1213 (Pa. Super. 2010)

(citation omitted).

      Our   review    confirms   that   Appellant    filed   her   petition   for

appointment/intervention while her appeal at No. 393 was pending.

                                     -6-
J-S37038-23

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1701 provides, “after an appeal is

taken …, the trial court … may no longer proceed further in the matter.”

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a). Rule 1701 authorizes certain trial court actions while an

appeal is pending:

     (b) Authority of a trial court or other government unit after
     appeal.-- After an appeal is taken or review of a quasijudicial
     order is sought, the trial court or other government unit may:

        (1) Take such action as may be necessary to preserve the
        status quo, correct formal errors in papers relating to the
        matter, cause the record to be transcribed, approved, filed, and
        transmitted, grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis,
        grant supersedeas, and take other action permitted or required
        by these rules or otherwise ancillary to the appeal or petition
        for review proceeding.

        (2) Enforce any order entered in the matter, unless the effect
        of the order has been superseded as prescribed in this chapter.

        (3) Grant reconsideration of the order which is the subject of
        the appeal or petition, ….

        (4) Authorize the taking of depositions or the preservation of
        testimony where required in the interest of justice.

        (5) Take any action directed or authorized by an appellate
        court.

        (6) Proceed further in any matter in which a non-appealable
        interlocutory order has been entered, notwithstanding the filing
        of a notice of appeal or a petition for review of the order.

     (c) Limited to matters in dispute.-- Where only a particular
     item, claim, or assessment adjudged in the matter is involved in
     an appeal, … the appeal or petition for review proceeding shall
     operate to prevent the trial court or other government unit from
     proceeding further with only such item, claim, or assessment,
     unless otherwise ordered by the trial court or other government
     unit or by the appellate court or a judge thereof as necessary to
     preserve the rights of the appellant.

                                    -7-
J-S37038-23

Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b), (c).

      In her petition, Appellant asked the trial court to appoint a special

counsel or seek the attorney general’s review of the disapproval of her private

criminal complaint. Because Appellant’s pending appeal at No. 393 sought

review of the same matter, Rule 1701 precluded further action by the trial

court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a). The trial court correctly explained,

      [a]fter an appeal is taken, the authority of the Common Pleas
      Court to take further action is limited. Pa.R.A.P. 1701. Here, [the
      trial court] entered a final order on December 8, 2021, denying
      the approval of the Private Criminal Complaint, which [Appellant]
      appealed to the Superior Court.           The relief requested by
      [Appellant’s] motion to the president judge refers to alleged relief
      under two statutes that cannot circumvent nor interfere with the
      jurisdiction of the Superior Court while the appeal from the [trial
      court’s] [o]rder [was] still pending … because the relief requested
      is not one of the limited actions permitted by Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b),
      so the motion was denied.

Trial Court Opinion, 6/9/23, at 2.    We agree with the trial court’s sound

reasoning and discern no error in its application of Rule 1701.

      Appellant also claims this Court should transfer her appeal to the

Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Appellant’s Brief at 63. Appellant initially filed

her appeal with the Supreme Court. See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,

Appellee v. Aisha Bradley, Appellant, 78 ET 2023 (Pa.). On March 9, 2023,

at 78 ET 2023, the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this Court. The

Supreme Court has determined that this Court has jurisdiction. Accordingly,

Appellant’s claim lack merit.

      Order affirmed.

                                     -8-
J-S37038-23

Date: 11/21/2023

                   -9-