J-S68023-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
DARNELL MORRIS
Appellant No. 3524 EDA 2013
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 8, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0004181-2013
BEFORE: ALLEN, J., JENKINS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY JENKINS, J.: FILED DECEMBER 19, 2014
Appellant, Darnell Morris, appeals from the judgment of sentence
entered in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas following his
bench trial conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to
deliver (“PWID”).1 We affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this appeal are as follows.
On February 27, 2013, Appellant was arrested and charged with PWID and
simple possession of a controlled substance. On March 28, 2013, the
Philadelphia Municipal Court conducted a preliminary hearing and
determined that there was prima facie evidence that Appellant committed
the felony of PWID and the misdemeanor of simple possession.
____________________________________________
1
35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30).
J-S68023-14
On September 19, 2013, after a bench trial, the Philadelphia Court of
Common Pleas found Appellant guilty of PWID and not guilty of simple
possession. On November 8, 2013, the court sentenced Appellant to two (2)
years’ probation. On December 6, 2013, Appellant timely filed a notice of
appeal. The court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors
complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant
complied on March 11, 2014.2
Appellant raises the following issue for our review.
DID [THE] TRIAL COURT, SITTING IN THE PHILADELPHIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ERR IN DENYING
APPELLANT’S REQUEST TO TRANSFER HIS CASE TO
PHILADELPHIA MUNICIPAL COURT, WHERE THE
STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE FOR THE MOST
SERIOUS CHARGED OFFENSE WAS FIVE YEARS’
INCARCERATION AND WHERE PA.R.CR.P. 1001 REQUIRES
A TWO-STEP CERTIFICATION PROCESS BEFORE A
MUNICIPAL COURT CASE MAY BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
Appellant argues that his trial should have been held in the Municipal
Court because the statutory maximum sentence for his felony is five years’
incarceration. Appellant contends that the Municipal Court has exclusive
jurisdiction over his claim and that the Common Pleas Court lacked subject
____________________________________________
2
In its Rule 1925(b) order dated January 8, 2014, the court allowed
Appellant thirty days from the filing of the order or twenty-one days from
the date on which Appellant received the Notes of Testimony to comply with
the order. The transcripts were filed on March 13, 2014. Therefore,
Appellant’s 1925(b) statement was timely filed.
-2-
J-S68023-14
matter jurisdiction to try his case. He concludes his conviction should be
vacated and the matter remanded to the Municipal Court for trial. We
disagree.
Because Appellant’s PWID charge is classified as a “felony” under the
Controlled Substance, Drug Device and Cosmetic Act, the Common Pleas
Court had subject matter jurisdiction over Appellant’s case.
The Municipal Court’s jurisdictional statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 1123,
provides in relevant part:
§ 1123. Jurisdiction and venue
(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise prescribed by
any general rule adopted pursuant to section 503 (relating
to reassignment of matters), the Philadelphia Municipal
Court shall have jurisdiction of the following matters:
(1) Summary offenses, except those arising out of the
same episode or transaction involving a delinquent act
for which a petition alleging delinquency is filed under
Chapter 63 (relating to juvenile matters).
(2) Criminal offenses by any person (other than a
juvenile) for which no prison term may be imposed or
which are punishable by imprisonment for a term of not
more than five years, including indictable offenses under
Title 75 (relating to vehicles). In cases under this
paragraph the defendant shall have no right of trial by
jury in the municipal court, but shall have the right of
appeal for trial de novo, including the right of trial by
jury, to the court of common pleas. The judges of the
municipal court exercising jurisdiction under this
paragraph shall have the same jurisdiction in probation
and parole arising out of sentences imposed by them as
judges of the court of common pleas.
* * *
-3-
J-S68023-14
(b) Concurrent and exclusive jurisdiction.--The
jurisdiction of the municipal court under this section shall
be concurrent with the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County except with respect to matters
specified in subsection (a)(2), as to which the jurisdiction
of the municipal court shall be exclusive except as
otherwise prescribed by any general rule adopted pursuant
to section 503.
42 Pa.C.S. § 1123 (emphasis added). Section 503, in turn, provides:
§ 503. Reassignment of matters
(a) General rule.--The Supreme Court may by general
rule provide for the assignment and reassignment of
classes of matters among the several courts of this
Commonwealth and the magisterial district judges as the
needs of justice shall require and all laws shall be
suspended to the extent that they are inconsistent with
such general rules.
42 Pa.C.S. § 503.
Our Supreme Court has promulgated general rules which prescribe
that in felony cases, the Municipal Court shall conduct the preliminary
hearing, and if it holds the defendant for court on the felony charge, the
Common Pleas Court shall conduct the defendant’s trial. Specifically,
Pa.R.Crim.P. 1003 provides:
Rule 1003. Procedure in Non-Summary Municipal
Court Cases
* * *
(E) Preliminary Hearing in Cases Charging a
Felony
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (E)(2) and
(E)(3), in cases charging a felony, the preliminary hearing
in Municipal Court shall be conducted as provided in Rule
-4-
J-S68023-14
542 (Preliminary Hearing; Continuances) and Rule 543
(Disposition of Case at Preliminary Hearing).
(2) At the preliminary hearing, the issuing authority
shall determine whether there is a prima facie case that an
offense has been committed and that the defendant has
committed it.
(a) Hearsay as provided by law shall be considered by
the issuing authority in determining whether a prima
facie case has been established.
(b) Hearsay evidence shall be sufficient to establish
any element of an offense including, but not limited to,
those requiring proof of the ownership of, non-permitted
use of, damage to, or value of property.
(3) If a prima facie case is not established on any
felony charges, but is established on any misdemeanor or
summary charges, the judge shall remand the case to
Municipal Court for trial.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 1003 (emphasis added).
Instantly, Appellant was charged with PWID under 35 P.S. § 780-
113(a)(30).3 Violation of subsection (a)(30) is expressly defined as a
____________________________________________
3
§ 780-113. Prohibited Acts; penalties
(a) The following acts and the causing thereof within
the Commonwealth are hereby prohibited:
* * *
(30) Except as authorized by this act, the
manufacture, delivery, or possession with intent to
manufacture or deliver, a controlled substance by a
person not registered under this act, or a practitioner
not registered or licensed by the appropriate State
board, or knowingly creating, delivering or possessing
with intent to deliver, a counterfeit controlled substance.
* * *
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
-5-
J-S68023-14
“felony” under subsection (f)(2). See n. 3, supra. Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P.
1003(E)(1), it was proper to conduct Appellant’s preliminary hearing in
Municipal Court and to conduct his trial in the Court of Common Pleas.
Therefore, we affirm the Judgment of Sentence.
Judgment of Sentence Affirmed.
_______________________
(Footnote Continued)
(f) Any person who violates clause (12), (14) or (30) of
subsection (a) with respect to:
(1) A controlled substance or counterfeit substance
classified in Schedule I or II which is a narcotic drug, is
guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be
sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years,
or to pay a fine not exceeding two hundred fifty
thousand dollars ($250,000), or both or such larger
amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in
and the profits obtained from the illegal activity.
* * *
(2) Any other controlled substance or counterfeit
substance classified in Schedule I, II, or III, is guilty of a
felony and upon conviction thereof shall be sentenced to
imprisonment not exceeding five years, or to pay a fine
not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), or
both.
35 P.S. § 780-113.
-6-
J-S68023-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/19/2014
-7-
Com. v. Morris, D.
Combined Opinion