J-S63017-18
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: PRIVATE CRIMINAL : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
COMPLAINT OF ALTON D. BROWN : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
APPEAL OF: ALTON D. BROWN :
:
:
:
: No. 179 WDA 2018
Appeal from the Order December 7, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County Criminal Division at
No(s): 25 MISC of 2017
BEFORE: OTT, J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS*, P.J.E.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED OCTOBER 15, 2018
Alton D. Brown (Appellant) appeals pro se from the trial court’s order
denying his petition for review of the denial of his two private criminal
complaints. We affirm.
In 1997, a jury convicted Appellant of robbery, aggravated assault and
related charges. On October 30, 1997, the trial court sentenced Appellant to
serve 35 to 70 years in prison. While incarcerated, Appellant:
has filed a plethora of appeals to the Superior Court, Petitions
seeking Allowance of Appeal by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court;
Applications to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seeking Special
Relief; approximately four (4) PCRA Petitions; Amended PCRA
Petitions; appeals of the denials of the PCRA Petitions; Petitions
for Supplemental Relief; Petitions for Modifications of the
Sentence; Motions for Reconsideration of various Court Orders;
Motions for Recusal; Petitions seeking the Production of
Audiotapes of Hearings; Petitions Seeking to Listen to Tape
Recorded Proceedings; Petitions for Court Orders Requiring the
Sheriff to Produce Him for a Hearing; etc.
____________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S63017-18
Commonwealth v. Brown, No. 132 EDA 2011, (Pa. Super. Ct. Feb. 19,
2013) (unpublished).1 This Court has decided at least two prior appeals
similar to the one now before us, where Appellant appealed from the denial of
petitions for review of the denial of private criminal complaints. See
Commonwealth v. Brown, No. 741 MDA 2017, (Pa. Super. Ct. Jan. 24,
2018) (unpublished) (noting that “due to the sheer number of filings by
Appellant in the courts of this Commonwealth, it is a daunting and time-
consuming task to track the frivolous, duplicative, and voluminous litigation
he creates”); see also Commonwealth v. Brown, No. 1997 MDA 2014, (Pa.
Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2015) (unpublished).
In this case, Appellant filed two private criminal complaints with the
Greene County District Attorney’s Office on May 18, 2015 and May 27, 2015.
The District Attorney’s Office rejected the complaints on June 5, 2015 and
June 8, 2015. Appellant filed a petition for review of the denials. The court
conducted a hearing on October 2, 2017. On December 7, 2017, the court
issued an order denying relief. Appellant appealed. He presents a single
issue:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion/erred in its decision
that [the] District Attorney’s disapproval of the private criminal
complaint was consistent with the laws?
Appellant’s Brief at 1.
____________________________________________
1 At this writing, a Westlaw search reveals that this Court and the
Commonwealth Court together have decided more than 59 appeals brought
by Appellant.
-2-
J-S63017-18
Appellant sought to file criminal charges against various prison officials
regarding food quality, cell conditions, medical care and Appellant’s personal
belongings. The trial court summarized:
[T]he “June 5, 2015” denial sought criminal charges against John
Wetzel and various John Doe Defendants alleging conduct as it
relates to food, housing conditions, medical care, and the handling
of personal and legal property. The “June 8, 2015” denial sought
criminal charges against [a] Correctional Officer[], as Brown
alleged the mishandling by [the officer] of [Appellant’s] personal
property.
Order, 12/7/17, at 3.
Appellant generally asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in
denying his petition for review. See Appellant’s Brief at 2-4. He does not
articulate a basis for the abuse of discretion, other than a vague reference to
“the verified facts of his pro se private complaints, which were constructed
while Appellant and his property were under daily attack – which persists to
this very day – clearly are reflective of crimes that involve ‘clear and present
danger’; which were supported by the prosecution and trial court.” Id. at 4.
The Commonwealth responds that the District Attorney rejected
Appellant’s complaints “due to a low chance of successful prosecution,” and
the trial court “appropriately limited its review to whether the District
Attorney’s Office abused its discretion.” Commonwealth Brief at 3.
In reviewing the actions of the Greene County District Attorney, the trial
court explained:
When the District Attorney disapproves a Private Criminal
Complaint indicating that it “lacks prosecutorial merit,” this is
deemed a “policy determination” and subject to the abuse of
-3-
J-S63017-18
discretion standard. In Re: Private Criminal Complaint of
John O'Brien Rafferty, 969 A.2d 578, 582 (Pa. Super. 2009),
citing In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005) (en banc).
“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.” In re Wilson, supra at 215.
The Commonwealth indicated that there would be little
chance of the successful criminal prosecution for conduct of State
Correctional Facility employees who are alleged to have been
involved in the destruction of [Appellant’s] property. . . .
The Court, in applying an abuse of discretion standard and
after review of the two (2) private criminal complaints which the
Court has designated as letters of denial dated June 5, 2015 and
June 8, 2015, the Court now determines that the Commonwealth
was within its sound discretion in disapproving the above
referenced Private Criminal Complaints.
Id. at 2-4.
Upon review, we discern no error in the trial court’s conclusion that
Appellant failed to meet his “heavy” burden of demonstrating an abuse of
discretion by the Greene County District Attorney. In re Wilson. We
therefore affirm the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s petition for review
of the denial of his two private criminal complaints.
Order affirmed.
-4-
J-S63017-18
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/15/2018
-5-