J-S38004-22
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
MEGAN DANIELLE WORZEL : No. 1457 EDA 2022
Appeal from the Order Entered April 27, 2022
In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Criminal Division at No(s):
CP-52-CR-0000098-2021
BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., MURRAY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.
MEMORANDUM BY SULLIVAN, J.: FILED APRIL 20, 2023
The Commonwealth appeals from the order denying its petition to
terminate the participation of Megan Danielle Worzel (“Worzel”) in the
Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (“ARD”) program. We quash the
appeal.
The trial court summarized the relevant factual and procedural history
as follows:
[I]n . . . October . . . 2020, . . . Worzel . . . was taken into
custody on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol after
she collided with an electric pole and left the scene to return home
and call emergency services. [In] June . . . 2021, [Worzel] was
granted entry to the Pike County ARD program. [I]n March . . .
2022, the Commonwealth filed a motion to terminate [Worzel’s]
admission into the ARD program . . ., alleging that she tested
positive for consumption of alcohol [in] December . . . 2021, in
violation of the terms of her ARD supervision. On April 27, 2022,
following a hearing on the motion, the trial court issued an order
finding [Worzel] in violation of the terms of the ARD program, but
denying the Commonwealth’s request to terminate her
participation in favor of adding an additional ninety (90) days to
J-S38004-22
her term of ARD supervision. On April 29, 2022, the
Commonwealth filed a motion for reconsideration, averring that
the court was required to terminate [Worzel’s] participation in the
ARD program. On May 26, 2022, the Commonwealth filed a notice
of appeal to the Superior Court. On June 3, 2022, the trial court
denied the motion for reconsideration as moot. [Both the
Commonwealth and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.]
Trial Court Opinion, 7/20/22, at 1-2 (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review: “Whether
the lower court erred in denying the Commonwealth’s motion to terminate
[Worzel] from the ARD program, when it found that she was in violation of
her conditions.” Commonwealth Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization
omitted).
Initially, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction over this
appeal. See Commonwealth v. Baio, 898 A.2d 1095, 1098 (Pa. Super.
2006) (holding that, because the question of appealability implicates the
jurisdiction of this Court, the issue may be raised by this Court sua sponte).
The general rule in Pennsylvania is that a party may appeal only from a final
judgment of sentence, and an appeal from any prior order will be quashed as
interlocutory. See Commonwealth v. Getz, 598 A.2d 1309, 1310 (Pa.
1991); see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742; Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). A final order is
generally defined as any order that disposes of all claims and of all parties.
See Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). The purpose of this rule is to prevent undue delay and
avoid the disruption of criminal cases by piecemeal appellate review. See
Commonwealth v. Scott, 578 A.2d 933, 941 (Pa. Super. 1990).
-2-
J-S38004-22
In examining ARD, this Court has explained:
ARD . . . is a pretrial disposition of certain cases, in which . . . the
Commonwealth agrees to suspend prosecution for an agreed upon
period of time in exchange for the defendant’s successful
participation in a rehabilitation program, the content of which is
to be determined by the court and applicable statutes.
. . . [A]fter [a defendant] has completed the program successfully,
the charges against [her] will be dismissed, upon order of court.
If [s]he does not complete the ARD successfully, [s]he may be
prosecuted for the offense with which [s]he was charged. The
district attorney’s utilization of ARD is optional under the rules.
Commonwealth v. Lebo, 713 A.2d 1158, 1161 (Pa. Super. 1998).
This Court has determined that an order regarding ARD is a non-
appealable interlocutory order. “An ARD determination provides no exception
to the general rule. Rather, it constitutes a non-final proceeding in which the
resolution of the criminal prosecution is merely held in abeyance. Acceptance
of ARD is an interlocutory matter and consequently is not appealable.” Getz,
598 A.2d at 1310 (citations omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Horn,
172 A.3d 1133, 1137-38 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Getz and quashing
defendant’s appeal from an order denying his petition to withdraw from ARD).1
____________________________________________
1 Rule 311 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure enumerates the
various types of interlocutory orders that are appealable as of right. See
Pa.R.A.P. 311(a), (b), (c). The order in question does not satisfy the criteria
for an appeal as of right under Rule 311(a), (b), or (c). Nevertheless, the
Commonwealth maintains that the trial court’s April 27, 2022 order is
appealable as of right under Rule 311(d) because “the order . . . will terminate
or substantially handicap the prosecution.” See Notice of Appeal, 5/26/22, at
1; see also Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (providing that “[i]n a criminal case, under the
circumstances provided by law, the Commonwealth may take an appeal as of
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-3-
J-S38004-22
Instantly, Worzel was not convicted of any crime and the trial court did
not impose a judgment of sentence. Rather, Worzel was charged with, inter
alia, two counts of driving under the influence of alcohol and the trial court
admitted her into an ARD program pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3807. Under
these circumstances, and consonant with Getz and Horn, the trial court’s April
27, 2022 order denying the Commonwealth’s motion to terminate Worzel’s
participation in ARD and extending her time in the program is not an
appealable order. See Horn, 172 A.3d at 1137-38; Getz, 598 A.2d at 1310.2
Accordingly, this appeal is not properly before us.
Appeal quashed.
____________________________________________
right from an order that does not end the entire case where the
Commonwealth certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate
or substantially handicap the prosecution”). Although Rule 311(d) permits an
appeal as of right, prior case law has continually placed limits on the scope of
this right as it pertains to non-evidentiary issues. See Commonwealth v.
Woodard, 136 A.3d 1003, 1005 (Pa. Super. 2016). Thus, this Court will not
accept blindly the Commonwealth’s certification of substantial hardship when
appeal is sought for non-evidentiary interlocutory orders, such as the order in
question. Id. Moreover, in the ARD context, an order is appealable only when
the ARD order disposes of all claims and of all parties in the case. See
Commonwealth v. Boos, 620 A.2d 485 (Pa. 1993) (holding that an order
reinstating defendant’s admission into ARD was a reviewable final order
because it resolved the defendant’s criminal charge, terminated the DUI
charge, and precluded the resumption of prosecution). Here, the April 27,
2022 order did not fully resolve Worzel’s criminal charges or preclude
prosecution of those charges. Instead, it merely held the resolution of the
criminal prosecution in abeyance for an additional ninety days. Thus, the
Commonwealth may not invoke Rule 311(d) to appeal this interlocutory order.
2 Notably, the Commonwealth did not ask for or receive permission to appeal
the interlocutory ARD order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 312, nor has it asserted that
the order could satisfy the collateral order doctrine pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 313.
-4-
J-S38004-22
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/20/2023
-5-