J-S69001-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
KENNETH R. JACKSON
Appellant No. 176 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 7, 2013
In the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-MD-0000109-2013
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., and STABILE, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED DECEMBER 11, 2014
Appellee, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has filed an application
for post-submission communication, seeking to correct certain purported
omissions in the certified record. Appellant, Kenneth R. Jackson, has filed a
motion to quash the Commonwealth’s brief. We deny relief on both motions.
On January 7, 2013, the Commonwealth moved for a finding of
contempt against Appellant, claiming he failed to appear on two prior court
dates. That same day, the Municipal Court conducted a hearing where the
Commonwealth submitted Appellant’s arrest files.1 The court, however, did
____________________________________________
1
The Commonwealth claims it actually submitted Appellant’s Quarter
Sessions files. To the extent Appellant argues otherwise, the
Commonwealth insists Appellant relied on an unofficial version of the notes
of testimony. We emphasize, however, the official transcript included with
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
J-S69001-14
not expressly admit the files into evidence. Moreover, the files are not part
of the certified record on appeal. Significantly, the Commonwealth offered
no additional evidence at the hearing to support its contempt motion.
Nevertheless, immediately following the hearing, the court convicted
Appellant of summary contempt. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on
January 9, 2013.
On November 20, 2014, the Commonwealth untimely filed its appellate
brief. Also on November 20, 2014, the Commonwealth filed an application
for post-submission communication. In it, the Commonwealth contends the
certified record on appeal mistakenly failed to include the documents
“entered into evidence” at the contempt hearing. The Commonwealth
argues Appellant did not move to correct the record, and the Commonwealth
did not discover the omission until it examined Appellant’s brief.
Consequently, the Commonwealth attached copies of the purportedly
omitted documents to its application. On November 25, 2014, Appellant
filed an answer to the Commonwealth’s application for post-submission
communication. That same day, Appellant also filed a motion to quash the
Commonwealth’s brief. Appellant asserts the Commonwealth filed its brief
with this Court approximately two (2) months late. Moreover, Appellant
complains the Commonwealth’s application for post-submission
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
the certified record on appeal confirms the Commonwealth submitted arrest
files rather than the Quarter Sessions files.
-2-
J-S69001-14
communication, “if allowed, would severely prejudice Appellant since he
prepared his brief using the actual transcript and certified…record provided
by the [trial] court.” (Appellant’s Motion to Quash Commonwealth’s Brief,
filed 11/25/14, at 2).
Instantly, the Commonwealth’s application now submits to us copies of
multiple documents pertaining to another case from a different docket
number. Whether the trial court properly admitted them into evidence or
considered them at the contempt hearing remains in question. Moreover,
nothing indicates the documents were omitted from the record by oversight,
error or mistake of court. See Pa.R.A.P. 1926 (explaining if anything
material is omitted from record by error, breakdown in processes of court, or
accident, or is misstated therein, omission or misstatement may be
corrected by appellate court upon application or on its own initiative at any
time). Because the Commonwealth failed to ensure the documents were
properly marked and admitted as evidence in the contempt case and made
part of the certified record on appeal, we deny the Commonwealth’s belated
post-submission application to include copies of those uncertified documents
on appeal. We likewise deny Appellant’s motion to quash the
Commonwealth’s brief as untimely.
Application for post-submission communication denied; motion to
quash Commonwealth’s brief denied.
-3-
J-S69001-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/11/2014
-4-