Com. v. Ani, N ( 2021 )

J-S01029-21
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
NNAEMEKA ANI : No. 808 MDA 2020
Appeal from the Order Entered May 12, 2020
In the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-14-CR-0001582-2019
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., McCAFFERY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
JUDGMENT ORDER BY McCAFFERY, J.: FILED JANUARY 29, 2021
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania files this appeal from the May 12,
2020, order entered in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas.1 The May
12th order granted Appellee Nnaemeka Ani’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
and dismissed burglary counts against him. The Commonwealth has also filed
an application for relief, requesting that this Court quash the above-captioned
appeal and remand for an evidentiary hearing based on newly discovered
evidence. We deny the request for quashal; however, we vacate the May 12,
2020, order and remand for a new, evidentiary hearing.
Authorities charged Appellee with, inter alia, several counts of burglary
stemming from incidents, testified to by a detective as follows:
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1The Commonwealth certifies in its notice of appeal that the order terminates
or substantially handicaps its prosecution, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311.
J-S01029-21
[Appellee] is charged in three separate burglaries; all three of the
victims were female; . . . he saw similarities with other trespass
and burglary cases in the area; and [Appellee] allegedly used his
cell phone as a flashlight once inside the residences. Video
evidence was presented to the Court showing a man, alleged to
be [Appellee], walking through an apartment building’s hallway
while checking several doors to presumably find an unlocked door.
The video showed the individual entering an apartment for
approximately four to five minutes before leaving, and the video
also showed the individual cover his face when leaving the
hallway. None of the victims were touched or harmed during the
incidents, no personal property was reported stolen or vandalized,
and the victims were able to specifically identify [Appellee] as the
perpetrator from a photographic lineup.
Trial Ct. Op., 5/3/20.
Appellee filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. After the trial court
heard argument on January 16, 2020, the court granted Appellee’s petition as
to the burglary charges. The court found that although it was undisputed
Appellee entered the residences without permission, license, or privilege, the
Commonwealth failed to prove a prima facie case of burglary because there
was no evidence of Appellee’s intent to commit a crime within the residences.
The Commonwealth filed this timely appeal.
Following issuance of this Court’s briefing schedule, the Commonwealth
filed an application for relief, requesting quashal of its appeal and a remand
for a new hearing due to newly discovered evidence. In this application, the
Commonwealth averred it retained a digital-forensics company, which
reported it found on Appellee’s cell phone a photo and video, filmed through
a window, of one of the victims partially nude. A search warrant executed
thereafter of Appellee’s backup data purportedly revealed a video of a couple
-2-
J-S01029-21
engaging in sexual acts, again filmed through a window at the same complex.
Appellee did not file a response, and did not address the Commonwealth’s
newly discovered evidence claims in his appellate brief.
In reviewing a decision to grant a pre-trial motion for writ of habeas
corpus, we examine the evidence, along with reasonable inferences derived
therefrom, in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See
Commonwealth v. Starry, 196 A.3d 649, 656 (Pa. Super. 2018). “At the
preliminary hearing stage of a criminal prosecution, the Commonwealth need
not prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather, must
merely put forth sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of guilt.”
Commonwealth v. Karetny, 880 A.2d 505, 513-14 (Pa. 2005).
Initially, we address the Commonwealth’s request to quash this appeal.
Its request is based on its desire to introduce new evidence, which it avers
will demonstrate Appellee’s criminal intent. We note “the refiling of charges
is a viable alternative to filing an appeal from the grant of a habeas corpus
petition.” Commonwealth v. Carbo, 822 A.2d 60, 69 (Pa. Super. 2003) (en
banc), abrograted on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Dantzler, 135 A.3d
1109, 1112 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2016) (en banc). The Commonwealth is permitted
to “refile these charges if it possesses additional evidence.” Id. at 72. A court
should deny refiling of the Commonwealth’s charges only if: (1) the statute of
limitations had expired on the date of refiling; (2) the court determines the
Commonwealth intended to harass the defendant; or (3) refiling of the
charges is prejudicial to the defendant. Id. at 73.
-3-
J-S01029-21
There is no allegation that any of the three limitations applies, nor do
we find evidence of any such limitation. See Carbo, 822 A.2d at 73. In the
interest of judicial economy, rather than quash the instant appeal, as it lies
from an appealable order, we vacate the trial court’s May 12, 2020, order and
remand for the trial court to conduct a new hearing based on the
Commonwealth’s previous and additional evidence. See id. at 69, 72. The
trial court shall thereafter review the Commonwealth’s evidence pursuant to
Starry, supra.
Commonwealth’s Application for relief DENIED IN PART and GRANTED
IN PART. Order VACATED. Case remanded for a new hearing, with
instructions. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 01/29/2021
-4-