Court Opinion

ID: 9352230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-05 17:08:17.280918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:59:28.490340
License: Public Domain

J-A25022-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

 IN RE: VITO A. PELINO                  :     IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                        :          PENNSYLVANIA
                                        :
 APPEAL OF: VITO A. PELINO              :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :
                                        :     No. 330 WDA 2022

               Appeal from the Order Entered March 3, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-30-MD-0000017-2020

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM BY NICHOLS, J.:                      FILED: January 5, 2023

      Appellant Vito A. Pelino appeals pro se from the order affirming the

Greene County District Attorney’s disapproval of Appellant’s private criminal

complaint. After careful review, we affirm.

      The trial court summarized the relevant facts and procedural history of

this case as follows:

      In the instant case, [Appellant] submitted a private criminal
      complaint to the Greene County District Attorney’s Office,
      containing allegations that Mr. [Robert] Gilmore [(Superintendent
      of SCI-Greene)], Mr. [Michael] Zaken [(Deputy Superintendent of
      SCI-Greene)], and Mr. [Gregory] Johnson [(Principal of SCI-
      Greene’s Education Department), (collectively the defendants)]
      violated 18 Pa.C.S § 903 Criminal Conspiracy to commit Official
      Oppression and 18 Pa.C.S § 5301(2) Official Oppression.
      Specifically, that [Appellant] was the subject of retaliation
      resulting from his federal civil complaint against Mr. Gilmore and
      Mr. Zaken. [Appellant] also asserts allegations against [Mr.]
      Johnson . . . for actions ([Appellant] claims) were [taken] at the
      direction of Mr. Zaken and Mr. Gilmore.
J-A25022-22

     [Appellant] is currently an inmate at [SCI-Greene], and [he] seeks
     to bring criminal charges against [the defendants] for alleged
     conduct relating to acts of retaliation against [Appellant].

     Specifically, [Appellant] alleges that on November 5, 2019, [Mr.]
     Johnson, acting on behalf of Mr. Zaken and Mr. Gilmore, fired
     [Appellant] from his position as an inmate legal reference guide in
     the prison law library and confiscated personal legal files of
     inmates who utilized legal aid[] services in retaliation for
     [Appellant’s] federal civil complaint.

     [Appellant] alleges that on November 17, 2019, Mr. Zaken and
     Mr. Gilmore denied him visitation with his adult brother and
     teenage son. Further, [Appellant] alleges that on December 10,
     2019, Mr. Johnson, acting on behalf of Mr. Zaken and Mr. Gilmore,
     threatened disciplinary action if [Appellant] continued to sign up
     for additional library time.

     On April 28, 2020, Mr. Johnson [allegedly] removed [Appellant]
     from the library without cause.

     Further, [Appellant] alleges that from January 1, 2020 until
     January 22, 2020, Mr. Zaken and Mr. Gilmore denied [Appellant]
     the ability to order food and hygiene products from the
     commissary.

     On November 5, 2021, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal
     Procedure, Rule 506, a review hearing was held by the [trial
     c]ourt. The Commonwealth stated that its determination to
     disapprove [Appellant’s] private criminal complaint was based
     upon a hybrid of legal and policy considerations.

     Assistant District Attorney [Roy E.] Cross stated that the denial
     was based upon an investigation by county investigators, a review
     of the file, a complaint with the Department of Corrections, and a
     pending federal civil case involving [Appellant] and the . . .
     defendants. The Commonwealth made a legal determination that
     the facts were so lacking in illegality that no reasonable jury would
     be able to find the [alleged] conduct was knowingly illegal.
     Further, the Commonwealth made a policy determination that to
     properly manage limited time and resources and reasonable
     efforts made to investigate [Appellant’s] private criminal
     complaint, the District Attorney’s office disapproved [Appellant’s]
     private criminal complaint.

                                     -2-
J-A25022-22

Trial Ct. Op. and Order, 3/2/22, at 4-7 (formatting altered and citations

omitted).   After review, the trial court found that the Commonwealth’s

decision to deny Appellant’s private criminal complaint was based on a hybrid

of legal and policy determinations, and the trial court affirmed the Greene

County   District   Attorney’s   disapproval   of   Appellant’s   private   criminal

complaint. See id. at 8. This timely appeal followed.

      In his brief, Appellant presents the following issues:

      1. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in disapproving the
         private criminal complaint despite the Greene County District
         Attorney’s failure to investigate?

      2. Did the lower court abuse its discretion in disapproving the
         private criminal complaint despite the Greene County District
         Attorney’s failure to establish a particular policy?

Appellant’s Brief at 3 (formatting altered).

      Our standard of review of a trial court’s decision to affirm a district

attorney’s disapproval of a private criminal complaint is as follows:

      When the district attorney disapproves a private criminal
      complaint solely on the basis of legal conclusions, the trial court
      undertakes de novo review of the matter.             Thereafter, the
      appellate court will review the trial court’s decision for an error of
      law. As with all questions of law, the appellate standard of review
      is de novo and the appellate scope of review is plenary.

      When the district attorney disapproves a private criminal
      complaint on wholly policy considerations, or on a hybrid of legal
      and policy considerations, the trial court’s standard of review of
      the district attorney’s decision is abuse of discretion.          This
      deferential standard recognizes the limitations on judicial power
      to interfere with the district attorney’s discretion in these kinds of
      decisions.

                                      -3-
J-A25022-22

In re Animal Outlook, 271 A.3d 516, 521 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation

omitted).

        Before we reach the merits of Appellant’s issues, we must determine

whether they are properly before us.      It is well settled that when the trial

court orders an appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of

on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), issues not included in the statement

are waived.    See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii).    Similarly, issues raised in an

untimely filed Rule 1925(b) statement are waived. See Commonwealth v.

Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 776 (Pa. 2005) (holding that an appellant waived

issues presented in an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement).        This bright-line

rule of waiver applies to both counseled and pro se appellants. See, e.g.,

Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 773-75 (Pa. 2005) (holding

that a pro se appellant who failed to comply with Rule 1925(b) waived issues

on appeal).

        The record reflects that Appellant filed a timely appeal, and on March

22, 2022, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors

complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) on or before April 12,

2022.     Order, 3/22/22.   On May 19, 2022, the trial court filed an order

pursuant to Rule 1925(a) stating that Appellant failed to file a timely Rule

1925(b) statement and noting that the reasons for affirming the District

Attorney’s disapproval of the private criminal complaint were set forth in its

March 3, 2022 order. Order, 5/19/22. The trial court transmitted the certified

record to this Court on May 20, 2022. The trial court docket reflects that on

                                      -4-
J-A25022-22

May 31, 2022,1 Appellant filed an untimely Rule 1925(b) statement and a

motion requesting an enlargement of time to file a Rule 1925(b) statement.

On June 2, 2022, the trial court informed Appellant that the record had already

been transmitted to this Court, and it denied Appellant’s motion for

enlargement of time. Order, 6/2/22.

       Because Appellant did not file a timely Rule 1925(b) statement, he failed

to preserve any issues for this Court’s consideration. See Castillo, 888 A.2d

at 776; see also Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). Accordingly, we affirm the trial

court’s order which affirmed the Greene County District Attorney’s disapproval

of Appellant’s private criminal complaint. In any event, were we to reach the

merits of Appellant’s appeal, we would affirm the trial court’s order on the

basis of its March 3, 2022 opinion and order.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

1 Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement is dated May 26, 2022. It is undisputed
that Appellant was incarcerated when he filed his Rule 1925(b) statement.
We note that the prisoner mailbox rule provides that a prisoner’s pro se filing
is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing. See
Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 266 A.3d 1128, 1132, n.8 (Pa. Super. 2021)
(citation omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 121. However, pursuant to the mailbox
rule, the earliest date on which Appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement could be
deemed filed was on May 26, 2022, which was forty-four days late.
Accordingly, even with the application of the mailbox rule, Appellant’s Rule
1925(b) statement was untimely.

                                           -5-
J-A25022-22

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 1/5/2023

                          -6-