HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0002605-2009 (2)
COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. :
:
RICKY L. MILLER, JR. : CP-21-CR-2605-2009
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE
OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1925
Masland, J., July 12, 2013:--
On August 3, 2012, following a lengthy degree of guilt hearing, this court found
Ricky L. Miller, Jr., (Petitioner) guilty of first degree murder and sentenced him to a term
of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Petitioner filed a timely appeal of
1
our sentence which is pending before this Honorable Court. On April 23, 2013,
Petitioner filed a petition for return of property seized. On May 28, 2013, we denied the
petition and Petitioner filed this appeal.
I. Facts
On July 27, 2009, Hampden Township Police Department conducted a search of
the Petitioner’s residence and vehicle pursuant to a homicide investigation. The police
seized $4,725.00 and numerous personal items.
II. Standard of Review
An appellate court’s review of a trial court’s decision on petition for return of
property is limited to, in part, whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed
1
See Commonwealth v. Miller, 1571 MDA 2012.
CP-21-CR-2605-2009
an error of law. Commonwealth v. Wintel, Inc., 829 A.2d 753 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003);
Commonwealth v. Pena, 751 A.2d 709 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
III. Analysis
Generally, orders denying the return of seized property are interlocutory, and an
appeal from them should be quashed. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 431 A.2d 357, 359
(Pa. 1981). However, the denial of such an application is appealable where the
application has the character of an independent proceeding, rather than a step in the
trial of the criminal case, as where the application is made by a stranger to the litigation,
or is made prior to the return of an indictment or information. Id. (citing Weeks v. U.S.,
232 U.S. 383 (1914)). The latter does not apply here as Petitioner is no stranger to the
litigation and the petition has not been made prior to the return of an indictment or
information. Furthermore, if Petitioner’s appeal is successful, the property may be
needed as evidence.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we submit that the denial of the petition should be
affirmed. Upon resolution of Petitioner’s appeal, we will happily entertain an appropriate
motion for the return of property.
By the Court,
Albert H. Masland, J.
-2-
CP-21-CR-2605-2009
Jonathan R. Birbeck, Esquire
Chief Deputy Assistant District Attorney
Ricky L. Miller, Jr., KR0841, Pro se
SCI Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
-3-