J-S09036-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
ZACHARY SPADA, PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: ZACHARY SPADA
No. 1350 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order entered July 30, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Clearfield County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-17-MD-0000053-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., BOWES, and ALLEN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 10, 2015
Zachary Spada (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the trial court’s
denial of his “Petition for Review.” We affirm.
The trial court explained:
[Appellant’s] Petition seeks review of the district attorney’s
decision to disapprove [Appellant’s] Private Criminal Complaint
filed against D.M. Farabaugh on January 30, 2014.
[Appellant] is an inmate currently housed at SCI-Houtzdale
in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. [Appellant’s] Private Criminal
Complaint alleges that Mr. Farabaugh, a corrections officer at
SCI-Houtzdale, called [Appellant] “a pedophile, child molester
and rapist” on one occasion, and a “chester” on yet another.
According to [Appellant], a “chester” is prison slang for a child
molester. Based upon these purported disparaging remarks,
[Appellant] filed his above-mentioned Private Criminal Complaint
in an attempt to charge Officer Farabaugh with Harassment
pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2709(a)(4).
On February 6, 2014, the district attorney disapproved
[Appellant’s] Private Criminal Complaint. In doing so, the
attorney for the Commonwealth stated that such disapproval
J-S09036-15
was based upon the district attorney’s office policy that all
incidents must first be reported to the Pennsylvania State Police
for investigation. As mentioned above, [Appellant] then filed a
Petition for Review, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal
Procedure 506.
Under Rule 506 and settled case law, the private criminal
complainant has no right to an evidentiary hearing in connection
with the trial court’s review of the district attorney’s decision to
disapprove the private criminal complaint. Michaels v. Barrasse,
681 A.2d 1362, 1365 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996); Commonwealth v.
Eisemann, 419 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1980). Rule 506 merely
allows the private criminal complainant the opportunity to have
his complaint reviewed in the Court of Common Pleas, following
the district attorney’s adverse decision. Id.
Trial Court Opinion and Order, 7/30/14, at 1-2 (footnote omitted).
Appellant recites four issues for our review:
a. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THAT THE APPELLANT’S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED?
b. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THAT IT CONDONED
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S VIOLATION OF APPELLANT’S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
c. WHETHER THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW INSOFAR AS THE COURT
IGNORED THAT THE OFFICE POLICY OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY HAD ALREADY BEEN FOLLOWED WITHOUT SUCCESS?
d. WHETHER THE “OFFICE POLICY” IS PATENTLY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT RELATES TO THE RIGHT TO
PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES?
Appellant’s Brief at 2. Although he lists four issues, the argument section of
Appellant’s brief contains only two subsections entitled: “A. THE LOWER
COURT VIOLATED APPELLANT’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DIRECTLY BY
-2-
J-S09036-15
ABUSING ITS DISCRETION” and “B. THE OFFICE POLICY OF THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ARBITRARY.” Appellant’s Brief at 3-
4. Appellant’s summary of argument reads:
The lower court erred in improperly abrogating the
appellant’s constitutional right to equal protection of law and to
petition the Government for redress of Grievances.
The lower Court condoned the District Attorney’s
abrogation of the appellant’s rights proffered supra.
The lower Court erred in its ignorance that an office policy
had been already followed. Said office policy is patently
unconstitutional and violates the above promulgated rights.
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
On appeal, Appellant challenges the constitutionality of the Clearfield
County District Attorney’s policy requiring that all incidents must first be
reported to the Pennsylvania State Police for investigation before a private
criminal complaint will be approved.1 Upon review, we find that Appellant’s
claims are waived.
The trial court correctly noted that Appellant’s “Petition does not plead
any facts or proffer any evidence that would demonstrate that the district
attorney’s decision declining to prosecute [Appellant’s] Private Criminal
____________________________________________
1
Within his petition for review, Appellant avers that on December 23, 2013,
he “informed PSP of the issues raised in the Complaint via US Postal Mail.
On January 15, 2014, [Appellant] received a response from Captain Bernard
J. Petrovsky, the commanding officer of the Troop C PSP Barracks in
Punxsutawny, PA, stating he forwarded [Appellant’s] letter to the
Department of Corrections’ Office of Professional Responsibility and
Intelligence Officer at SCI-Houtzdale.” Petition for Review, 2/19/14, at 1.
-3-
J-S09036-15
Complaint amounted to bad faith, fraud or unconstitutionality.” Trial Court
Opinion and Order, 7/30/14, at 2. Issues not raised with the trial court are
waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a).
Even issues of constitutional dimension cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal. Commonwealth v. Strunk, 953 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2008).
Moreover, Appellant has failed to develop his constitutionality claims within
his appellate brief, further supporting our finding of waiver. See
Commonwealth v. Tielsch, 934 A.2d 81 (Pa. Super. 2007) (holding that
undeveloped claims will not be considered on appeal). Finally, Appellant’s
pro se status “does not entitle [him] to any particular advantage because of
his … lack of legal training.” Thomas v. Elash, 781 A.2d 170 (Pa. Super.
2001), citing First Union Mortg. Corp. v. Frempong, 744 A.2d 327, 333
(Pa. Super. 1999).
Order affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/10/2015
-4-