In Re: Lavond A. Hill Appeal of: Lavond A. Hill ( 2014 )

J-S46025-14
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: LAVOND A. HILL IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: LAVOND A. HILL
No. 1939 MDA 2013
Appeal from the Order Entered August 28, 2013
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Civil Division at No(s): CP-31-MD-0000106-2013
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 26, 2014
Lavond Hill appeals from the order of August 28, 2013, dismissing his
appeal pursuant to rule 506 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure1
and holding that the District Attorney of Huntingdon County acted within his
discretion in de
affirm.
Hill was an inmate at State Correctional Institution Smithfield, in
Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania. Beginning on May 15, 2013, Hill filed
multiple private criminal complaints asserting that a staff member had
a private criminal complaint, and Hill appealed this denial to the Huntingdon
____________________________________________
1
The rule provides that private criminal complaints shall be submitted to an
attorney for the Commonwealth, and if the attorney disapproves the
complaint, the complainant may seek review in the court of common pleas.
Pa.R.Crim.P. 506.
J-S46025-14
County Court of Common Pleas. On August 28 2013, the trial court
its discretion in denying the private criminal complaint. Thereafter, Hill filed
a timely appeal in this Court.
The review process for the denial of a private criminal complaint is well
settled:
if the Commonwealth disapproves a private criminal
complaint, the complainant can petition the Court of
Common Pleas for review, and the trial court must first
correctly identify the nature of the reasons given by the
based on a legal evaluation of the evidence, the trial court
undertakes a de novo review of the matter. Thereafter,
In re Private Criminal Complaints of Rafferty, 969 A.2d 578, 581 (Pa.
Super. 2009) (quoting In re Wilson, 879 A.2d 199, 212 (Pa. Super. 2005)).
complaint on wholly policy considerations, or on a hybrid of legal and policy
decision is abuse of disc Wilson, 839 A.2d at 215. The decision of
the district attorney not to prosecute a private criminal complaint for reasons
including policy considerations creates a presumption of good faith and
soundness. Indeed,
[t]he complainant must create a record that demonstrates
the contrary. Thus, the appropriate scope of review in
policy-declination cases is limited to whether the trial court
-2-
J-S46025-14
misapprehended or misinterpreted the district attorney's
decision and/or, without legitimate basis in the record,
substituted its own judgment for that of the district
attorney.
Id.
complaint due to a lack of factual basis for the crime the complaint alleged.
The crime which Hill complained of lacks a factual basis because Hill filled
out and signed a request that the $12.00 at issue be sent to his attorney.
involved in disputes where an administrative process exists to resolve the
issue, which is the case in this dispute. Thus, the denial of the private
criminal complaint was based upon a hybrid of legal and policy
considerations, and our standard of review is whether the trial court abused
its discretion.
Here,
alternative administrative remedy to pursue. Thus, Hill has provided
absolutely no evidence demonstrating that the trial court substituted its own
office or otherwise abused its
discretion. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not abuse its
Order affirmed.
-3-
J-S46025-14
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 8/26/2014
-4-