Com. v. Pena, R. ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • J-S53042-16
    NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA                      IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
    PENNSYLVANIA
    Appellant
    v.
    RICARDO A. PENA
    No. 46 MDA 2016
    Appeal from the Order Entered December 16, 2015
    in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division
    at No(s):CP-06-CR-0003415-2015
    BEFORE: BOWES, SHOGAN, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
    JUDGMENT ORDER BY FITZGERALD, J.:                   FILED AUGUST 26, 2016
    The Commonwealth appeals from the order of the Berks County Court
    of Common Pleas granting Appellee Ricardo A. Pena’s1 pretrial motion for
    writ of habeas corpus and dismissing the charges of conspiracy and
    violations of the Wiretap Act against him.2 The Commonwealth claims that
    the trial court erred in concluding that a “smartphone” with voice recording
    capabilities was used as a “telephone” and not an “electronic, mechanical or
    other device” under the Wiretap Act.       See 18 Pa.C.S. § 5702.   The trial
    court, in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, observes that its decision is
    inconsistent with Commonwealth v. Smith, 
    136 A.3d 170
     (Pa. Super.
    *
    Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
    1
    The Commonwealth’s appeal from the order dismissing the charges against
    Appellee’s codefendant, Jeffrey Nein, is docketed at 47 MDA 2016.
    2
    18 Pa.C.S. §§ 903(a)(1)-(2); 5703(1)-(3).
    J-S53042-16
    2016), which was decided while this appeal was pending. See Trial Ct. Op.,
    3/21/16, at 2.
    Following our review, we agree with the Commonwealth and the trial
    court that Smith governs the issue raised in this appeal and requires that
    the trial court’s order be reversed.3 See Smith, 136 A.3d at 178 (“although
    [the defendant] used an app on his smartphone, rather than a concealed
    tape     recorder,   to   surreptitiously    record   his   conversation   with   [the
    complainant], the result is the same. [The defendant’s] actions constituted
    a violation of Section 5703.”)
    Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
    Judgment Entered.
    Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
    Prothonotary
    Date: 8/26/2016
    3
    Appellee did not file a brief in this appeal.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 46 MDA 2016

Filed Date: 8/26/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/27/2016