HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-0026 miscellaneous appeal~. S74023/99
IN RE' PRIVATE CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT OF FRANCIS E.
WEAVER
APPEAL OF: FRANCIS E. WEAVER
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PEN NSYLVANIA
No. 442 MDA 99
Appeal from the Order of February 3, 1999, In the
Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Criminal Division,
at No. 99-026 Misc.
JUDGMEHT
oH COH~D~t~OH Ve221~eF. OF, it is now here ordered and
adjudged by this Court that the judgment of the Court of
Common Pleas of CUMBERL3aND County be, and the same
is hereby AFFIRMED.
.-. BY THE COURT:
Dated: NOVEMBER 9, 19 9 9
3. S74023/99
IN RE: PRIVATE CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT OF FRANCIS E.
WEAVER
APPEAL OF: FRANCIS E, WEAVER
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT .OF
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 442 MDA 99
Appeal from the Order of February 3, 1999, In the
Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Criminal Division,
at No. 99-026 Misc.
BEFORE: CAVANAUGH, LALLY-GREEN and BROSKY, 33.
MEMORANDUM:
i: I I. E O NOV - 9 19~1~)
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for approval of a
private criminal complaint. Appellant essentially raises four questions for
review, whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his private
criminal complaint without ordering the District Attorney to support his
rationale for denying the private complaint, by disregarding Appellant's equal
protection argument, by disregarding Appellant's argument that no civil
remedy exists in the underlying matter, and whether the court went outside
the standard of review by denying the petition for review on its merits? We
affirm.
Appellant's private criminal complaint stems from what he has alleged
to be an illegal oppression of his right to review a contract, between the
Department of Corrections and a health care provider, which Appellant
3. S74023/99
believes has relevance to an underlying civil lawsuit he filed. The District
Attorney reviewed the complaint and concluded that it did not merit further
prosecution. Appellant then filed a petition for approval of a private criminal
complaint with the Court of Common Pleas which was also denied. Appellant
then filed the instant appeal.
A private citizen may file a private criminal complaint with the District
Attorney for prosecution. When such an action is taken the District Attorney
must review the complaint and determine whether the complaint should be
prosecuted. When a District Attorney denies a private criminal complaint the
party filing the complaint may have the decision reviewed by a judge of the
Court of Common Pleas. However, a District Attorney's decision not to
prosecute a case will not be reversed absent a "gross abuse of discretion."
In Re Wood, 482 A.2d 1033 (Pa. Super. 1984).
After reviewing Appellant's brief and the record, including the private
criminal complaint filed with the District Attorney, we agree with the trial
court that Appellant has not demonstrated that the District Attorney abused
his discretion in refusing Appellant's private criminal complaint. Moreover,
we cannot conclude that Appellant's criminal complaint in fact states a crime
on the part of the parties subject to the complaint. Indeed, Appellant's
private criminal complaint appears to be wholly frivolous.
-2-
3. S74023/99
If we understand Appellant's complaint correctly, Appellant alleges
that certain individuals employed by the Department of Corrections have
denied his request to view a contract that may have relevance to an
underlying civil suit. Appellant further asserts that these parties have
ignored a discovery order. In our opinion Appellant has not established that
a crime has been committed. As the correspondence from Mark E. Guzzi,
Esquire demonstrates, Appellant had access to the document if certain
copying fees were paid. Further, the court correctly points out that the
document was fully discoverable in the underlying suit. If the subjects of
the complaint refused discovery requests the avenue of recourse was to
seek sanctions under the rules of civil procedure. Consequently, we see no
error in the District Attorney's denial of Appellant's private criminal
complaint, or in the trial court's affirmance of the Same.
Order affirmed.
-3-