J-S48025-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee :
:
v. :
:
ADREESE B. ALSTON, :
:
Appellant : No. 95 WDA 2015
Appeal from the Order entered January 2, 2015,
Court of Common Pleas, Erie County,
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-MD-0000710-2014
and CP-51-CR-0010363-2007
BEFORE: PANELLA, DONOHUE and WECHT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY DONOHUE, J.: FILED AUGUST 19, 2015
Adreese B. Alston (“Alston”) appeals pro se from the order of court
denying his appeal of the Erie County District Attorney’s (the “District
Attorney” or “Commonwealth”) disapproval of his private criminal complaint.
Following our review, we affirm.
The trial court succinctly summarized the underlying facts as follows:
[Alston], a convicted murderer, is currently
serving a life sentence at the State Correctional
Institution in Albion. [Alston] previously filed a
criminal complaint against [the] Superintendent of
SCI-Albion, Nancy Giroux, alleging that he is being
incarcerated unlawfully at Philadelphia County
Docket No. 10363-2007. According to [Alston],
there is no sentencing order at the challenged docket
and, therefore, he is illegally incarcerated. On
October 14, 2014, the [District Attorney]
disapproved the complaint for lacking prosecutorial
merit.
J-S48025-15
On November 6, 2014, [Alston] filed a
[p]etition for [r]eview [f]rom the [d]enial of
[Alston’s] [p]rivate [c]riminal [c]omplaint … . The
Commonwealth filed a timely response on December
12, 2014, and subsequently provided the [c]ourt
with [Alston’s] sentencing [o]rder and other
supporting documentation at Philadelphia County
Docket No. 1316-2007. []
Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/15, at 1.
The trial court denied Alston’s petition for review on January 2, 2015.
This timely appeal follows, in which Alston argues that the trial court erred in
denying his petition because he “set forth a strong prima facie showing that
[Giroux] [is] subjecting [Alston] to official oppression, involuntary servitude,
peonage, and penal servitude … because [Alston] has not ever been
sentenced by a court of law through a legal written, signed, and sealed
sentencing order and judgment.” Alston’s Brief at 6.
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 506 governs private criminal
complaints. It provides as follows:
(A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement
officer, the complaint shall be submitted to an
attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall
approve or disapprove it without unreasonable
delay.
(B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth:
(1) approves the complaint, the attorney
shall indicate this decision on the
complaint form and transmit it to the
issuing authority;
-2-
J-S48025-15
(2) disapproves the complaint, the
attorney shall state the reasons on
the complaint form and return it to
the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant
may petition the court of common
pleas for review of the decision.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 506.
In this case, the District Attorney disapproved Alston’s criminal
complaint because it concluded that it lacked prosecutorial merit.
Commonwealth’s Response to Petition for Review, 12/12/14, at 1. Our
courts have long held that disapproval for lack of prosecutorial merit is a
disapproval based upon policy considerations. In re Private Criminal
Complaint of Rafferty, 969 A.2d 578, 582 (Pa. Super. 2009).
[W]hen the district attorney disapproves a private
criminal complaint on wholly 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. ... 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. ... The district attorney's decision not to
prosecute a criminal complaint for reasons including
policy matters carries a presumption of good faith
and soundness. ... The complainant must create a
record that demonstrates the contrary. Thus, the
appropriate scope of review in policy-declination
cases is limited to whether the trial court
misapprehended or misinterpreted the district
attorney's decision and/or, without a legitimate basis
in the record, substituted its judgment for that of the
district attorney. We will not disturb the trial court's
decision unless the record contains no reasonable
-3-
J-S48025-15
grounds for the court's decision, or the court relied
on rules of law that were palpably wrong or
inapplicable. Otherwise, the trial court's decision
must stand, even if the appellate court would be
inclined to decide the case differently.
***
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 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.
Commonwealth v. Michaliga, 947 A.2d 786, 791-92 (Pa. Super. 2008)
(internal citations omitted).
Accordingly, Alston was required to establish that the District
Attorney’s determination that his complaint lacked prosecutorial merit was
based on fraud, unconstitutionality, or bad faith. To that end, Alston
seemingly alleged bad faith, in that he argued that the District Attorney was
“ignor[ing] the law as written as well as … turn[ing] a blind eye and deaf
ear” to his private criminal complaint because he established prima facie
evidence that he was illegally incarcerated. Petition for Review from the
-4-
J-S48025-15
Denial of Petitioner’s Private Criminal Complaint, 11/6/14, at 7. The trial
court rejected this allegation based upon its finding that Alston’s sentence
was memorialized in a written sentencing order, thereby demolishing that
premise for the offenses Alston sought to have brought against Giroux. Trial
Court Opinion, 1/2/15, at 2-3.
We can find no abuse of discretion in that determination.1 The
foundation of Alston’s private criminal complaint was his claim that his
incarceration was illegal because his judgment of sentence was not reduced
to a written order. In its response to Alston’s petition for review, the District
Attorney provided a copy of the written order. Commonwealth’s Response to
Petition for Review, 12/12/14, at 3; Trial Court Opinion, 1/2/15, at Exhibit A.
The written sentencing order nullifies Alston’s claims and supports the
District Attorney’s determination that his private criminal complaint lacks
prosecutorial merit. In light of this evidence, Alston has failed to establish
“how the facts of the case lead only to the conclusion that the district
attorney's decision was patently discriminatory, arbitrary or pretextual, and
therefore not in the public interest.” Michaliga, 947 A.2d at 792. Having
found no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s order.
Order affirmed.
1
“An abuse of discretion occurs where the law is overridden or misapplied,
or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of
partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record.”
Commonwealth v. Adams, 104 A.3d 511, 517 (Pa. 2014) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Randolph, 873 A.2d 1277, 1281 (Pa. 2005)).
-5-
J-S48025-15
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/19/2015
-6-