Court Opinion

ID: 9404225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 16:09:43.246682+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:12.479506
License: Public Domain

J-S16034-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT OP 65.37

    IN RE: OTHER                               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                                               :
                                               :
    APPEAL OF: AISHA BRADLEY                   :   No. 2100 EDA 2022

                   Appeal from the Order Entered July 8, 2022
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                       No(s): CP-51-MD-0003368-2021

BEFORE:       DUBOW, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.

MEMORANDUM PER CURIAM:                                    FILED JUNE 22, 2023

        Aisha Bradley (Appellant) appeals pro se from the July 8, 2022, order

entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, denying her

motion for audio recordings of two hearings, which was filed while her prior

appeal was pending.1        We now dismiss this appeal and deny her April 30,

2023, “Application for Post-Submission Communication.”

                               I. Procedural History

        On August 3, 2021, Appellant filed a private criminal complaint with the

Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DA),2 purportedly as power of attorney

____________________________________________

1   In re: Other, 393 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Feb. 28, 2023).

2   The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has recently explained:

        Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 506 . . . authorizes
        private citizens to file criminal complaints against other persons
        before the appropriate issuing authority. [T]he private criminal
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S16034-23

for her 70-year old friend, Patricia Simon. At a hearing before the trial court,

Appellant explained her claims, which she characterized as “municipal fraud,”

as follows: (1) in 1960 or 1962, City of Philadelphia employees improperly

took Patricia’s home and land to be public park property; (2) “landlocked”

Patricia’s property; and then (3) “cover[ed] up” their actions with “lie[s]” and

“false statements in government documents.” N.T., 12/7/21, at 9-13.

       The DA disapproved the private criminal complaint as follows:

       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.

In re: Other, 393 EDA 2022 (unpub. memo. at 3) (footnote & quotation

marks omitted). Appellant appealed to the Philadelphia Municipal Court, which

denied relief on September 21, 2021. See Trial Ct. Op., 5/6/22, at 1.

       Appellant then appealed to the Court of Common Pleas (trial court),

which conducted the aforementioned hearing on December 7, 2021. Patricia

was not present, and Appellant did not know Patricia’s current address. N.T.,

12/7/21, at 14. The trial court sought to review the power of attorney, but

____________________________________________

       complaint must first be submitted to an attorney for the
       Commonwealth for approval or disapproval.        If . . . the
       Commonwealth disapproves[,] Rule 506 . . . permits the private
       complainant to petition the court of common pleas to review the
       disapproval decision.

In re Private Complaint Filed by Luay Ajaj, 288 A.3d 94, 96 (Pa. 2023)
(footnotes omitted).

                                           -2-
J-S16034-23

Appellant did not have it with her. Thus, the court continued the hearing to

the following day, repeatedly directing Appellant to produce an original,

current, valid, and notarized power of attorney. Id. at 18-19, 38, 56, 60.

      At the hearing on the second day, Appellant provided a copy of a power

of attorney, but the trial court found it was not valid. Specifically, the court

observed: the signatures were not original; the signature on page 9 “looks

very different than every other signature;” and one signature had a date of

August 25, 2019, although the date of the notarization was August 17th. N.T.,

12/8/21, at 4. Accordingly, as Appellant had acknowledged she did not own

the subject property, see N.T., 12/7/21, at 9, the court concluded she lacked

standing to seek judicial review of the DA’s disapproval of the private criminal

complaint. Trial Ct. Op., 5/6/22, at 5. The court thus dismissed her appeal

from the Municipal Court.

                    II. Prior Appeal at 393 EDA 2022

      Appellant appealed from that decision to this Court. Pertinently, her

trial court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on

appeal stated it was “impossible” to file a Rule 1925(b) statement because

“the transcripts were defective and the trial court refused to provide an audio

recording of the proceedings.” In re: Other, 393 EDA 2022 (unpub. memo.

at 5).   The Rule 1925(b) statement included “172 numbered paragraphs,

replete with subparagraphs,” and her appellate brief presented “102

questions, most of which accuse[d] judges and assistant district attorneys of

                                     -3-
J-S16034-23

official oppression, misconduct, obstruction, conspiracy, and other offenses.”

Id. at 5-6 (footnote omitted).

      Appellant additionally filed applications for various types of relief in this

Court, resulting in the issuance of 14 separate denial orders. See, e.g., Order,

393 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Feb. 7, 2023) (citing “Appellant’s established

pattern of submitting an ordinate number of prolix filings in the trial court and

in this Court” and prohibiting her from filing further applications).

      On February 28, 2023, the panel dismissed the appeal, on the grounds

Appellant failed to comply with Rule 1925(b) and the briefing requirements of

our Rules of Appellate Procedure.      In re: Other, 393 EDA 2022 (unpub.

memo. at 8-9). Appellant’s petition for reargument was denied on May 9th.

Nevertheless, Appellant attempted to communicate directly with the panel

Judges, and on May 15th, the panel issued an order, proclaiming such conduct

violated Pa.R.A.P. 121(a) (“Papers required or permitted to be filed in an

appellate court shall be filed with the prothonotary.”).       The order further

advised, “Any further attempts to contact the individual judges or judicial

chambers directly shall result in the imposition of sanctions.” Order, 393 EDA

2022 (Pa. Super. May 15, 2023).

                   III. Underlying July 8, 2022, Order

      While the above appeal was pending, Appellant continued to file

applications for relief in the trial court. Pertinently, on March 11, 2022, she

requested audio recordings of the two trial court hearings.         Trial Ct. Op.,

                                      -4-
J-S16034-23

1/27/23, at 2. The trial court denied this motion, reasoning Appellant had

received copies of the transcripts. Nevertheless, on June 29th, Appellant filed

another motion, renewing her request for the audio recordings. Id. at 4. The

trial court denied this motion with prejudice on July 8th, and Appellant filed a

notice of appeal.

       On October 20, 2022, this Court issued a per curiam order, directing

Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not quashed as having been

taken from an unappealable order. See Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) (generally, appeal

may be taken as of right from any final order), (b) (a final order disposes of

all claims and of all parties). Appellant replied — while the prior appeal was

still pending — citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Martin, 705 A.2d 1337

(Pa. Super. 1998), and with Commonwealth v. Ballem, 482 A.2d 1322 (Pa.

Super. 1984) (both discussed infra). This Court discharged the rule to show

cause, but advised this issue would be referred to the merits panel. Order,

3/15/23.

                                     IV. Analysis

       Appellant has filed a pro se 139-page, disjointed and rambling brief with

this Court, raising an inordinate number of claims.3        However, the order

____________________________________________

3 For example, Appellant alleges misconduct by assistant district attorneys,
the trial court’s failure to review the merits of her claims, the court’s error in
“look[ing] for a Valid Power of Attorney,” and improper ex parte
communication between the DA and trial court. Appellant’s Brief at 4, 27, 45.
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -5-
J-S16034-23

appealed from is the trial court’s July 8, 2022, denial of her motion for audio

recordings of the two December 2021 hearings. We thus focus our review on

whether Appellant is entitled to relief on this discrete issue.

       Our Supreme Court recently held:

       [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 re Private Complaint Filed by Luay Ajaj, 288 A.3d at 109.

       In Ballem, cited by Appellant in her response to our rule to show cause

order, the defendant received a sentence of death in 1955. See Ballem, at

482 A.2d at 1323. In 1983, he filed a petition for the production of transcripts

for the proceedings — which was denied. Id. On appeal, this Court noted:

       It is well-established that constitutional due process and equal
       protection require that a criminal defendant be afforded copies of
       his trial transcripts in order to effectively prosecute an appeal.
       Our Supreme Court has long upheld this procedural right and has
       attributed to the state the responsibility of providing a defendant
       with copies of the necessary proceedings so that appellate rights
       might be actively pursued.

Id. 482 A.2d at 1323 (citations & footnote omitted).

       However, the Ballem Court reasoned a defendant seeking transcripts

“must allege some basis which would justify its exercise.” Ballem, at 482

____________________________________________

Additionally, her “Statement of the Questions Involved” presents 20
enumerated claims. Id. at 31-35.

                                           -6-
J-S16034-23

A.2d at 1323. In Ballem, “no such action [was] currently pending,” and thus

the trial court “was in no position to assess [the defendant’s] claims.” Id. at

1324.    The Court thus concluded that “until a proceeding to question the

record is commenced,” there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s

denying the request for transcripts. Id.

        Next, in Martin, the criminal defendant, seven months after sentencing,

filed pro se motions seeking the production of transcripts and in forma

pauperis status, in order to prepare for post-conviction proceedings. Martin,

705 A.2d at 1338. The trial court denied relief, reasoning the defendant had

no currently open matters, including any pending appeal.         See id.   The

defendant appealed from that order, arguing “the denial of his requests

constituted violations of several rules of procedure and various constitutional

rights.” Id. This Court held the issue was governed squarely by Ballem, and

affirmed the denial. Id.

        As stated above, 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 was pending. That appeal 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.

                                      -7-
J-S16034-23

      We acknowledge that Ballem and Martin addressed requests for

transcripts, whereas the instant issue is the denial of audio recordings.

Nevertheless, against the particular circumstances of this case, we conclude

that under the rationale of those decisions, Appellant is not entitled to relief.

See Martin, 705 A.2d at 1338; Ballem, at 482 A.2d at 1323-24.

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 this appeal.

                           V. Additional Motions

      At this juncture, we note Appellant has continued to file more than a

dozen long and convoluted applications in this Court, resulting in multiple

denial orders. On May 18, 2023, this panel issued an order, again warning

Appellant: “Any further attempts to contact the individual judges or judicial

chambers directly shall result in the imposition of sanctions.” Order, 5/18/23.

That order further provided, “No other applications will be entertained in

connection with the instant appeal, and this Court’s Prothonotary is specifically

instructed to reject any such attempted filing by Appellant.”        We remind

Appellant the May 18, 2023, order remains in effect.

      Finally, Appellant has filed, on April 30, 2023, an “Application for Post-

Submission Communication.” In light of our disposition above, we DENY the

application.

                                      -8-
J-S16034-23

                             VI. Conclusion

     Appeal   dismissed.    Appellant’s   Application   for   Post-Submission

Communication denied. This Court’s May 18, 2023, order remains in effect.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 6/22/2023

                                  -9-