HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-0026 miscellaneousIN RE: PRIVATE CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT OF FRANCIS E. WEAVER
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
99-0026 MISCELLANEOUS
IN RE: PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Bayley, J., February 3, 1999:--
Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim. P. 106(a), Francis E. Weaver, a state prisoner under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, sought approval of a private criminal
complaint by the District Attorney of Cumberland County. Petitioner sought to file
charges of official oppression, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 5301, and criminal conspiracy to
commit official oppression, 18 Pa.C.S. Section 903, against Joseph Mataloni, Mark E.
Guzzi, Esq., and Kathleen Zwierzyna. Petitioner identifies Joseph Mataloni as
"Corrections Health Care Administrator Department of Corrections;" Mark E. Guzzi,
Esq., as "Chief Counsel's Office Department of Corrections;" and Kathleen Zwierzyna,
as "Director Bureau of Health Care Department of Corrections."
Official oppression is defined in Section 5301 of the Crimes Code:
A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or
taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a
misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is
illegal, he:
(1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure,
mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of
personal or property rights; or
(2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of
any right, privilege, power or immunity.
Petitioner alleges that Mataloni, Guzzi and Zwierzyna conspired to deprive him
of "his right to review, inspect, and copy a contract between the Department of
99-0026 MISCELLANEOUS
Corrections and Correctional Physician's Service, Inc." By letter dated September 15,
1998, the District Attorney of Cumberland County disapproved a private criminal
complaint, stating:
Pursuant to your letters of August 6, 1998, and August 20, 1998,
this office has reviewed your 'private criminal complaint' alleging that
various officials of the Department of Corrections committed official
oppression, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5301. After a complete review of the matter,
I must disapprove your criminal complaint. Clearly by your own
statement of the facts, this matter is in civil litigation. This being the
case, your right to obtain, inspect, and/or copy documents is covered by
the Rules of Discovery. Such materials may be obtained by filing
motions with the court in which the litigation is taking place.
Accordingly, if you are entitled to the documents you are requesting, the
appropriate court can order their disclosure.
Since you have a remedy at civil law, the filing of criminal charges
for official oppression is not warranted. Frankly, given the fact that there
is a set procedure for obtaining discovery, negates any criminal intent
on the part of Department of Corrections officials, because the civil court
has the power to order discovery if in fact it is warranted.
In any regard, after a complete review of your 'private criminal
complaint' it is denied.
Petitioner seeks our review of the decision of the District Attorney pursuant to
Pa.R.Crim. P. 106(b)(2). In Commonwealth v. Pritchard, 408 Pa. Super. 221 (1991),
the Superior Court of Pennsylvania stated:
The judge's independent review of the [private criminal] complaint
serves as a check and balance of the district attorney's decision and
protects against the possibility of error. Piscanio Appeal, 235 Pa. Super.
490, 492-496, 344 A.2d 658, 660-2 (1975).
The trial court, in its independent review of the complaint, should not
interfere with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion unless it is
determined that there has been a 'gross abuse of discretion'. In Re
Wood, 333 Pa. Super. 597, 601,482 A.2d 1033, 1036 (1984);
Commonwealth v. Eisemann, 276 Pa. Super. 543, 546, 419 A.2d 591,
593 (1980).
-2-
99-0026 MISCELLANEOUS
In Piscanio Appeal, 235 Pa. Super. 490 (1975), the Superior Court stated that the
rules of criminal procedure:
simply allows the complainant to file the disapproved complaint with a
judge of a court of common pleas for approval or disapproval. The
court is not required...to grant a hearing; the additional procedure
merely gives the private prosecutor the opportunity to have his
complaint reviewed following an adverse decision by the district
attorney.
We conclude, without a hearing, that the District Attorney has not committed a
gross abuse of discretion in disapproving the filing of the sought after criminal
charges on this frivolous and absurd claim of official oppression. Therefore, we will
not interfere with that decision.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this "~/~-- day of February, 1999, petitioner's request for approval
of a private criminal complaint, IS DENIED.
Francis E. Weaver, AK-4597, Pro se
SCI Retreat
RD #3, Box 500
Hunlock Creek, PA 18621-9580
By the COurt,,; '/;/~/
David Freed, Esquire
Assistant District Attorney
:saa
-3-