Court Opinion

ID: 9839264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-12 17:09:09.075279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.251403
License: Public Domain

J-S26029-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA            :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                         :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 JAMES P. MCNULTY                        :
                                         :
                   Appellant             :   No. 500 EDA 2023

              Appeal from the Order Entered February 3, 2023
  In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at
                      No(s): CP-51-CR-0003422-2014

BEFORE: STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                  FILED SEPTEMBER 12, 2023

     James P. McNulty appeals pro se from the denial of his motion for return

of property under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 588. We affirm.

     On December 16, 2013, police searched McNulty’s residence and seized

items pursuant to a warrant. Commonwealth v. McNulty, No. 1767 EDA

2015, 2016 WL 854136, at *3 (Pa. Super. Mar. 4, 2016) (non-precedential

decision). McNulty was arrested on January 7, 2014, and police charged him

in connection with the search. He was ultimately convicted at a non-jury trial

on March 26, 2015. On May 28, 2015, the trial court sentenced McNulty to

an aggregate term of four to eight years of imprisonment followed by ten

years of probation. Id. at *2.

     McNulty continued to litigate his case. He filed a direct appeal from his

judgment of sentence, which this Court affirmed on March 4, 2016. Id. at *1.

He filed several petitions under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42
J-S26029-23

Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541–9546, as well as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in

the federal court system. McNulty did not receive relief.

      On January 27, 2023, McNulty filed a pro se motion for return of

property while his case was pending on appeal from the denial of his third,

untimely PCRA petition. The trial court denied McNulty’s motion by order on

February 3, 2023. The court stated that it lacked jurisdiction because the

motion was untimely and that the motion would fail for lack of specificity.

Order, 2/3/23; see Trial Court Opinion, 3/2/23, at 3.

      On February 13, 2023, McNulty timely appealed. The trial court did not

direct McNulty to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal.

On March 2, 2023, the trial court entered an opinion explaining its ruling.

      McNulty presents two issues for this Court’s review:

      1. Did the trial Court [err] in the denial of the motion and [its]
         determination that the issue was waived and the Court lacked
         the jurisdiction to consider the motion when it was filed during
         the pendency of a criminal proceeding that was under
         consideration by the Superior Court?

      2. Did the trial Court [err] in the denial of the motion and [its]
         determination that the motion was untimely filed when the
         filing of the motion was during the pendency of a criminal
         proceeding that was under consideration by the Superior Court
         and not outside nor subjected to the Statute of Limitations
         applicable to said filing?

McNulty’s Brief at 2–3.

      This Court usually reviews a trial court’s denial of a motion for return of

property to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Commonwealth v. Caviness, 243 A.3d 735, 738 (Pa. Super. 2020).

                                      -2-
J-S26029-23

However, the applicable time limit to file such a motion is a question of law

that we review de novo. See Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709, 714

(Pa. 2014) (citing Ash v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 932 A.2d 877, 879 (Pa. 2007)).

      Rule 588 allows “[a] person aggrieved by a search and seizure” to

request “the return of the property on the ground that he or she is entitled to

lawful possession thereof” by filing a motion. Pa.R.Crim.P. 588(A). This Court

has held that if a defendant does not file a motion for return of property before

the direct appeal from the judgment of sentence, he waives his ability to do

so later. Commonwealth v. Setzer, 392 A.2d 772, 773 (Pa. Super. 1978).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Setzer is the correct source of the

time limit for a criminal defendant to file a Rule 588 motion. Allen, 107 A.3d

at 711. “If the claimant was the defendant, the waiver rule applies because

he had a prior missed opportunity to move for the return of property.” Id.

      The Supreme Court clarified that a Rule 588 “motion is timely when it is

filed by an accused in the trial court while that court retains jurisdiction, which

is up to thirty days after disposition.” Id. at 717 (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505).

Therefore, a trial court does not have jurisdiction over a Rule 588 motion that

a criminal defendant files more than 30 days after sentencing. Caviness, 243

A.3d at 739. Appeals and habeas corpus proceedings do not prolong

this 30-day time limit.        See Allen, 107 A.3d at 714–15; see also

Commonwealth v. Beal, No. 1855 EDA 2022, 2023 WL 2582298, at *4 (Pa.

Super. Mar. 21, 2023) (non-precedential decision) (finding a habeas corpus

proceeding did not affect the 30-day time limit from sentencing).

                                       -3-
J-S26029-23

       Here, because McNulty was the defendant in a criminal case, he had

thirty days from the date of his sentencing to file a motion for return of

property. He was sentenced on May 28, 2015. He did not file his Rule 588

motion until January 27, 2023. Under Setzer and Allen, McNulty waived his

motion, and the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction over it. Caviness,

243 A.3d at 739.         McNulty’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing.1

Therefore, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion by applying the

30-day limit and denying McNulty’s motion.

       Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 9/12/2023

____________________________________________

1 We recognize that a person who is not a party to an underlying criminal
proceeding has six years to file a Rule 588 motion. See In re Return of
Personal Property, 180 A.3d 1288, 1293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). Here,
however, McNulty is the defendant in his criminal case.

      Additionally, if the Commonwealth responds to an untimely Rule 588
motion with a forfeiture petition, the court can rule on the merits of the
motion. See Commonwealth v. Irland, 193 A.3d 370, 377 n.9 (Pa. 2018).
Here, however, the Commonwealth did not file a forfeiture petition.

                                           -4-