J-S06040-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
TERANCE P. HEALY
Appellant No. 376 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order January 27, 2016
in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
at No(s): CP-46-CR-0003151-2015
BEFORE: MOULTON, RANSOM, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 23, 2017
Appellant, Terance P. Healy, appeals from the order entered in the
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas finding him to be incompetent
and appointing a public defender to represent him.1 Because we conclude
that the order is not final and appealable, we quash.
The facts are unnecessary for our disposition. As a prefatory matter,
we consider whether the order appealed from is interlocutory. “[S]ince we
lack jurisdiction over an unappealable order it is incumbent on us to
determine, sua sponte when necessary, whether the appeal is taken from an
appealable order.” Kulp v. Hrivnak, 765 A.2d 796, 798 (Pa. Super. 2000)
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1
We note that the case was continued at the time the instant order was
entered.
J-S06040-17
(citation omitted). See also Commonwealth v. Demora, 149 A.3d 330,
331 (Pa. Super. 2016).
Pursuant to Rule 341 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure,
our jurisdiction is limited to appeals from “final order[s] of [the trial] court.”
Pa.R.A.P. 341(a).
Generally, a criminal defendant may appeal only from a
judgment of sentence. However, an appeal before final
judgment may be permitted in exceptional circumstances,
such as
. . . (1) where an appeal is necessary to prevent a
great injustice to the defendant, or (2) where an
issue of basic human rights is involved, or (3) where
an issue of great importance is involved.
* * *
[D]eterminations of mental competence to proceed to trial
have not been found to present exceptional circumstances
requiring immediate appeal.
Commonwealth v. Reagan, 479 A.2d 621, 622 (Pa. Super. 1984)
(citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Commonwealth v.
Pruitt, 951 A.2d 307, 316-17 (Pa. 2008) (reviewing trial court’s competency
ruling on direct appeal).
Similarly, Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in appointing a
public defender to represent him is an interlocutory order. See Pa.R.A.P.
341(a); Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1334 (Pa. 1995)
(reviewing trial court’s denial of appellant’s right to represent himself on
appeal from the judgment of sentence). See also Commonwealth v.
-2-
J-S06040-17
Johnson, 705 A.2d 830, 834 (Pa. 1998), (holding an order disqualifying a
defendant’s choice of defense counsel is interlocutory).
Accordingly, since the order of the lower court is interlocutory, we
quash this appeal.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 2/23/2017
-3-
Com. v. Healy, T.
Combined Opinion