HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-MD-0000185-2011
ROBERT J. URBANSKI : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PETITIONER : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
V. :
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PA :
And the State of Delaware, :
Attorney General, :
M. Jane Brady : CP-21-MD-185-2011
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
Ebert, J., June 9, 2011 –
Pro Se Petitioner Robert J. Urbanski has filed an appeal following an order
1
denying his Pro Se Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Petitioner appeals based on the
2
following contentions in his Concise Statement of Issues Complained of on Appeal:
th
1. Petitioner avers that on March 24, 2011, the Cumberland
County Court erroneously denied the Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus
asking for an old detainer to be removed from the Petitioners record.
2. Petitioner avers that the Detainer was deemed waived when
the State of Deleware [sic] elected to for go [sic] transportation of the
Petitioner back in early 2006. The Petitioner signed his “Waiver of Right
to Governor’s Warrant”, triggering the 30 day time frame for extradition,
articulated in Article 3. Section “C” of the interstate agreement on
Detainer, and the State of Deleware [sic] decided to waive their rights to
the prosecution of this matter through their choice of not transporting the
Petitioner.
3. Petitioner avers that by not bringing the Petitioner to the
state of Deleware [sic] within the 30 days required by law, that this
Detainer was automatically satisfied, and lifted as a result.
4. Petitioner avers that the State of Deleware [sic] is time
barred from prosecution, pursuant to Rule 600, because the time frame for
prosecution has expired 5 times over.
1
Order of Court, Mar. 23, 2011.
2
Concise Statement of Issues Complained of on Appeal, filed May 17, 2011.
1
5. Petitioner avers that no detainer existed anywhere, on any of
the Petitioners Institutional paperwork for 4 to 5 years, and suddenly the
State of Deleware [sic] tried to regenrate [sic] a new warrant number to
regenrate [sic] an extradition and prosecution on an old warrant. Not only
is this practice sneaky and underhanded, its also illegal, and a violation of
the “RES Judicata” doctorine [sic] which specifically states that “no party is
permitted to have 2 bites at the same apple” Lemonds vs. St. Louis
th
County 222 F.3d. 488,495 (8 Cir. 2000).
6. The Petitioner avers that the Cumberland County Courts
have made an invalid determination on the Petitioner’s original Habeas
Submission and is appealing this decision to the Middle District of
Pennsylvania to correct the erroneous Judgement [sic], and order the PA.
State Department of Corrections to remove this illegal detainer in the
interest of Justice.
Summary
Petitioner is and has been, for all times relevant to this appeal, serving a
3
sentence in the Camp Hill State Correctional Institute of six to sixteen years. The
Defendant’s presence in SCI-Camp Hill is his only nexus to Cumberland County. On
May 17, 2005, the Justice of the Peace Court for New Castle County, Delaware, issued
a warrant for Petitioner on the basis of allegations that he committed the crimes of
Unlawful Use of a Credit Card (two counts), Conspiracy in the second degree, and
4
Forgery in the third degree.
On February 16, 2006, The Court of Common Pleas of Chester County,
Pennsylvania issued an Order for Commitment and Extradition, in which the Court
found that Petitioner was duly informed of his right to a Governor’s Warrant of
extradition and of the Petitioner’s right to challenge the legality of his arrest under a
Governor’s Warrant by applying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. The court additionally
3
Order of Court, Mar. 23, 2011.
4
Adult Complaint and Warrant, J.P. Ct. New Castle County, Delaware, May 17, 2005.
2
found that the Petitioner waived such rights and consented to return to Delaware by
5
executing the Information about, and Waiver of, Right to Governor’s Warrant. The
Order further provided that the Warden of Chester County Prison or the Sheriff of
Chester County shall deliver Petitioner to the agent of Delaware, provided that such
delivery of Petitioner shall not take place until the Petitioner is released from all
commitments and detainers arising from jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and that until such delivery, the Petitioner shall be committed to Chester
County Prison.
On February 11, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a
Petition to Proceed in Forma Pauperis Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 240. In his Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner contended that his waiver of extradition constituted a
request for final resolution, requiring that the matter be brought to trial within 180 days.
Petitioner further contended that, because no trial was brought by Delaware in those
6
180 days, the detainer should be lifted. Additionally, Petitioner concluded the delay of
five years violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial, that the Statute of Limitations
has run out on the crimes of which Petitioner was accused, and that Pennsylvania case
7
law provides that the detainer should be removed.
On February 28, 2011, the Clerk of Court of Cumberland County responded to
Petitioner, stating that Cumberland County does not have jurisdiction over a detainer
8
lodged out of the State of Delaware. Petitioner filed a second Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus on March 4, 2011, contending that the Clerk of Court had mistakenly
5
Order for Commitment and Extradition, Ct. Com. Pl. Chester County, Feb. 16, 2006.
6
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, received by Court Feb. 11, 2011.
7
Id.
8
Letter from Clerk of Court to Robert Urbanski, February 28, 2011.
3
returned his previous Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and threatening civil action
against both the Clerk of Court and the office of the Clerk of Court itself.
On March 23, 2011, the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County issued
Orders of Court denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petition to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis, citing the lack of merit of the Petitioner’s action and calling
it frivolous. This appeal followed.
Discussion
Petitioner complains that this Court erred in denying his Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus and that the Delaware detainer should be lifted as a result. Pa.R.A.P.
1925 (b) Concise Statement of Issues Complained of on Appeal, filed May 17, 2011.
Petitioner argues a thirty day time frame for extradition was triggered when he signed
his “Waiver of Right to Governor’s Warrant,” and that the detainer was automatically
satisfied and lifted when Petitioner was not brought into the State of Delaware within
that time period. Id. Petitioner also alleges that the State of Delaware is time barred
from prosecution, pursuant to Rule 600. Id.
It is clear that Petitioner waived both his right to a Governor’s Warrant and his
Habeas Corpus right to contest the legality of his arrest by signing the Information
about, and Waiver of, Right to Governor’s Warrant, dated February 16, 2006. In the
Order for Commitment and Extradition, also dated February 16, 2006, it was explicitly
stated that Petitioner would not be delivered to Delaware until he has been released
from all commitments and detainers arising from jurisdictions within the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and that Petitioner would be committed to Chester County Prison until
such delivery.
4
Petitioner not only was informed of his right to test the legality of his arrest by
applying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Information about, and Waiver of, Right to
Governor’s Warrant, he was also informed that by waiving this right, he would not be
able to test the legality of his arrest. In the Information and Waiver, Petitioner explicitly
agrees to the waiver, and states, “I waive my right to a Governor’s Warrant and my right
to test, with the assistance of legal counsel, the legality of my arrest under a Governor’s
Warrant.” Further, in the Order of Court of Chester County dated February 16, 2006,
Petitioner was specifically advised that his delivery to the State of Delaware would not
take place until he is released from all commitments and detainers arising from
jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Order stated further that
until such delivery, Petitioner shall be committed to Chester County Prison without bail.
As Petitioner is still serving a sentence in the Pennsylvania State Correctional Institute
of six to sixteen years, he will not be delivered to Delaware until said sentence is
completed, and only then will a 120 day period for commencement of trial begin to run,
as per the Agreement on Detainers, Article IV, Paragraph (c). Order of Court, Mar. 23,
2011; 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9101 (West 2011).
Petitioner relies on Article III, Paragraph (c), of the Agreement on Detainers in his
assertion of a thirty day time frame for extradition. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9101
(West 2011). However, Paragraph (c) does not mention any such time frame, referring
only to the responsibility of the official having custody of the prisoner to inform said
prisoner of his right to make a request for final disposition. Id. Paragraph (c) reads in
full:
(c) The warden, commissioner of corrections or other official having
custody of the prisoner shall promptly inform him of the source and
5
contents of any detainer lodged against him and shall also inform him of
his right to make a request for final disposition of the indictment,
information or complaint on which the detainer is based.
Id.
While no mention of a thirty day time period is found in Article III of the
Agreement on Detainers, a thirty day period does appear in Article IV, Paragraph (a).
See id. The thirty day period in Article IV does not refer to a time frame for extradition,
however. See id. It instead refers to the amount of time the Governor of the sending
state has to disapprove a request for temporary custody or availability. Id.
Petitioner also avers that the State of Delaware is barred from prosecution
pursuant to Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rule 600
enumerates prompt trial requirements, specifically that trial shall commence no later
than 180 days from the date on which the complaint is filed. Petitioner mistakenly relies
here on the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure for a complaint arising out of the
State of Delaware. Because the complaint came out of the State of Delaware,
Petitioner cannot find relief in the Rules of Criminal Procedure for Pennsylvania.
Article III, Paragraph (a) of the Pennsylvania Agreement on Detainers stipulates
that a prisoner against whom a detainer is lodged shall be brought to trial within 180
days after he delivered to the prosecuting officer and court of the prosecuting officer’s
jurisdiction written notice of the place of his imprisonment and his request for a final
disposition to be made on the indictment, information, or complaint. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Ann. § 9101 (West 2011). In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner asserts
that his waiver of his right to a Governor’s Warrant constituted a request for final
resolution.
6
The requirement in the Agreement on Detainers stipulates that written notice of a
request for final disposition must be given to the prosecuting officer in order for the 180
day period for extradition to begin. Id. In Commonwealth v. Gonce, 466 A.2d 1039,
1045 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1983), the Superior Court of Pennsylvania rejected the appellant’s
contention that he had already requested final disposition of his detainers. The court
did so because the appellant delivered his alleged request to the Clerk of Courts instead
of the prosecuting officer and because the document he submitted could not be
reasonably interpreted as a request for final disposition. Id. at 1044. The document
the appellant alleges was a request for final disposition was entitled “Defendant’s
Answer to Application for Extending Time for Commencement of Trial and Motion to
Dismiss Charges.” Id. The Superior Court found that the language in the appellant’s
pro se answer, stating “he was ready, and prepared and able to proceed with trial since
September, 1979 …,” did not request final disposition of the detainers. See id. at 1045.
Petitioner here asserts that the document entitled “Information about, and Waiver
of, Right to Governor’s Warrant” constitutes a request for final disposition of his
detainer. See Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The document, an instrument of the
Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, contains no language requesting final
disposition, nor was its purpose to do so. See Information about, and Waiver of, Right
to Governor’s Warrant. Like the title of the appellant’s document in Gonce, the title of
Petitioner’s document does nothing to indicate that its purpose is to request final
disposition of a detainer. See 466 A.2d at 1044. Petitioner’s Information about, and
Waiver of, Right to Governor’s Warrant appears to be a standard waiver produced by
the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County and contains no language that could be
7
construed as to request final disposition. In the document, Petitioner agrees only that
he has read the document and understands it, that he has no questions about it, and
that he waives his right to a Governor’s Warrant and his right to test the legality of his
arrest. Because the document Petitioner refers to does not request final disposition, the
180 day period for Petitioner to be brought to trial has not yet begun to run, and
Petitioner thereby was not denied his speedy trial rights under Article III of the
Agreement on Detainers.
Conclusion
In signing the Information about, and Waiver of, Right to Governor’s Warrant,
Petitioner waived his right to test the legality of his arrest by applying for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus. The arguments Petitioner made in his Concise Statement of Issues
Complained of on Appeal have no merit and do not entitle the Petitioner to have the
detainer removed from his record. This court did not err in denying Petitioner’s Pro Se
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Petitioner’s rights to speedy trial and habeas
corpus were not violated.
By the Court,
__
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
District Attorney’s Office
Robert J. Urbanski, HL-2174
SCI – Camp Hill
P.O. Box 200
Camp Hill, PA 17001-0200
8