J-S40033-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
DARNELL L. ADAMS, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. :
:
NANCY G. GIROUX, SUPERINTENDENT :
AT SCI ALBION; AND JACK DANERI, :
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ERIE COUNTY, :
PENNSYLVANIA, :
:
Appellees : No. 63 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered December 12, 2014,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
Criminal Division, at No(s): CP-25-MD-0000652-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., DONOHUE and STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED: July 29, 2015
Darnell L. Adams (Adams) appeals pro se from an order denying his
petition for review from the denial of his private criminal complaint. We
affirm.
The trial court summarized the background underling this matter as
follows.
[Adams] is currently confined at the State Correctional
Institution at Albion, Pennsylvania.[1] Asserting that a valid
sentencing order did not exist justifying his commitment, he filed
a private criminal complaint alleging false imprisonment and
official oppression. He alleges that [] Nancy G. Giroux,
superintendent of SCI-Albion, has committed these offenses by
causing his continued confinement. By letters dated January 31,
2014 and October 9, 2014, representatives of the Erie County
1
Adams pled guilty to second-degree murder and is serving a sentence of
life in prison.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S40033-15
District Attorney’s Office advised [Adams] that his complaint was
denied because it lacked prosecutorial merit. On October 9,
2014, [Adams] filed a motion to compel requesting that the Erie
County District Attorney disapprove the complaint and set forth
its reasons pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 506(B)(2). On October 15,
2014, [the trial court] ordered the Commonwealth to file a
response. It did so on November 17, 2014, attaching relevant
information….
Trial Court Opinion, 12/12/2014, at 1 (citations omitted).
The trial court denied Adams’ petition for review from the denial of his
private criminal complaint. Adams timely filed a notice of appeal. In his
brief to this Court, Adams presents one issue, namely, “[Adams] contends
that the trial court abused its discretion by relying upon a warrant of
commitment (also known as mittimus) to improperly deny his petition for
review from the denial of [Adams’] private criminal complaint.” Adams’ Brief
at 6 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We consider Adams’ issue mindful of the following legal principles.
[W]hen the district attorney disapproves a private criminal
complaint on wholly policy considerations, or on a hybrid of legal
and policy considerations, the trial court’s standard of review of
the district attorney’s decision is abuse of discretion. This
deferential standard recognizes the limitations on judicial power
to interfere with the district attorney’s discretion in these kinds
of decisions.
The private criminal complainant has the burden to prove
the district attorney abused his discretion, and that burden is a
heavy one. In the Rule 506 petition for review, the private
criminal complainant must demonstrate the district attorney’s
decision amounted to bad faith, fraud or unconstitutionality. The
complainant must do more than merely assert the district
attorney’s decision is flawed in these regards. The complainant
must show the facts of the case lead only to the conclusion that
-2-
J-S40033-15
the district attorney’s decision was patently discriminatory,
arbitrary or pretextual, and therefore not in the public interest.
In the absence of such evidence, the trial court cannot presume
to supervise the district attorney’s exercise of prosecutorial
discretion, and should leave the district attorney’s decision
undisturbed.
Thereafter, the appellate court will review the trial court’s
decision for an abuse of discretion, in keeping with settled
principles of appellate review of discretionary matters.
In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 215 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted).
Adams believes that his continued incarceration is illegal because a
proper sentencing order does not exist as required by 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 9764(a)(8).2 Thus, he filed a private criminal complaint against the
superintendent of SCI-Albion, alleging false imprisonment and official
oppression. The trial court determined that Adams’ confinement is lawful.
In so doing, the court cited a sentencing order, which the Commonwealth
provided to the court.
2
Subsection 9764(a)(8) provides as follows:
(a) General rule.--Upon commitment of an inmate to the
custody of the Department of Corrections, the sheriff or
transporting official shall provide to the institution’s records
officer or duty officer…
***
(8) A copy of the sentencing order and any detainers filed
against the inmate which the county has notice.
42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8). This Court has held that this statute neither
requires the Department of Corrections to maintain and produce the
enumerated documents, nor creates for a prisoner a remedy for
noncompliance. Joseph v. Glunt, 96 A.3d 365, 371 (Pa. Super. 2014).
-3-
J-S40033-15
On appeal, Adams argues that, for various reasons, the document that
the trial court deemed to be a sentencing order was not such an order.
Adams’ primary contention is that the document is a “mittimus,” not a
sentencing order.3 Thus, he argues, the court erred by concluding that a
valid sentencing order exists and that his confinement is lawful.
The document that the Commonwealth provided to the trial court is
from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division. It
is captioned “Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Darnell Adams,
Defendant.” Certified Record Entry 8. The caption further states that: the
docket number is 9314841, the charge is criminal homicide, Adams pled
guilty to second degree murder, and the penalty is life imprisonment.
The body of the document provides as follows:
LIFE SENTENCE
AND NOW, September 27, 1994, in open Court, defendant
appearing with counsel, the sentence of law is that you, Darnell
Adams, pay a fine of 6 ¼ cents to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, pay the costs of prosecution and undergo an
imprisonment for the period of your natural life and stand
committed, and be sent to the Western Correctional Diagnostic
and Classification Center at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to be
transferred to such institution as may be deemed appropriate.
Date of last commitment: November 14, 1993
3
Mittimus is defined as follows: “1. A court order or warrant directing a
jailer to detain a person until ordered otherwise[.] 2. A certified copy of a
prisoner’s conviction or sentencing proceedings. 3. A writ directing the
transfer of records from one court to another.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1024
(8th ed. 2004).
-4-
J-S40033-15
BY THE COURT:
Id. The document is signed by Judge Novak and date-stamped by the clerk
of courts, stating, “FROM THE RECORDS ATTEST Oct 04 1994.” Id.
Adams has failed to convince us that the trial court abused its
discretion by denying his petition for review from the denial of his private
criminal complaint. The document provided by the Commonwealth to the
trial court is sufficient to prove that Appellant is being lawfully detained. By
all appearances, this document is a valid sentencing order. This order
justified the trial court’s decision not to disturb the district attorney’s
decision to disapprove Adam’s private criminal complaint. Accord Joseph,
96 A.3d at 371 (Pa. Super. 2014) (“The language and structure of section
9764, viewed in context, make clear that the statute pertains not to the
DOC’s authority to detain a duly-sentenced prisoner, but, rather, sets forth
the procedures and prerogatives associated with the transfer of an inmate
from county to state detention.”) (footnote omitted). Thus, we conclude
that Adams is not entitled to relief.
Order affirmed.
-5-
J-S40033-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/29/2015
-6-