Com. v. Rainelli, D. ( 2021 )

J-A28024-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
DAVID RAINELLI, JR. : No. 1853 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered December 17, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-02-CR-0000012-2019
BEFORE: OLSON, J., MURRAY, J., and McCAFFERY, J.
MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.: FILED JANUARY 12, 2021
The Commonwealth appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing the
charges filed against Appellee, David Rainelli, Jr. (Rainelli), for lack of
jurisdiction. After careful review, we affirm.
The trial court summarized the procedural posture of this case as
follows:
[Rainelli] was charged on September 21, 2018 with two
counts of Aggravated Assault, two counts of Terroristic Threats,
one count of Resisting Arrest, two counts of Harassment, and one
count of Disorderly Conduct as a result of [an] incident that
occurred at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in O’Hara
Township in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania [(VA Medical
Center)].[1]
On July 8, 2019, [Rainelli’s] original trial counsel filed a
motion to dismiss the charges based on improper venue and
jurisdiction. This [c]ourt denied that motion on September 18,
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 2702(a)(3), 2706(a)(1), 5104, 2709(a)(1), and 5503(a)(1).
J-A28024-20
2019. [Rainelli] then file a pro se Petition for Habeas Corpus on
October 11, 2019, which this [c]ourt subsequently denied. On
October 16, 2019, this [c]ourt granted a motion filed by original
trial counsel to withdraw her appearance in this case and this
[c]ourt appointed Corrie Woods, Esquire to continue the
representation of [Rainelli]. On November 20, 2019, [Rainelli]
filed a counseled Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over
Federal Enclave raising new factual and legal issues. The
Commonwealth filed a response on December 16, 2019. After
hearing argument on the motion, on December 17, 2019, this
[c]ourt granted the motion to dismiss. The Commonwealth appeal
followed.
Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/20, at 1-2 (footnote added).
Both the Commonwealth and the trial court have complied with
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925. On appeal, the
Commonwealth presents a single issue for review:
Whether the Trial Court erred in concluding that proper
procedures were not followed by the Commonwealth to establish
concurrent jurisdiction over the federal Veterans Affairs property
at issue where: (1) the federal government agreed to the
retrocession of jurisdictional authority over the property at issue;
(2) the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted legislation giving the
Executive the authority to accept the federal government’s offer
of jurisdiction over the property and; (3) the federal government’s
offer and grant of jurisdiction were accepted by the
Commonwealth?
Commonwealth Brief at 4.
The Commonwealth claims the trial court erred “in concluding that there
was insufficient evidence that Pennsylvania had established concurrent
jurisdiction over the federal [VA] Medical Center where [Rainelli] was alleged
to have committed his crimes.” Commonwealth Brief at 13. The
Commonwealth argues:
-2-
J-A28024-20
In the [c]ourt below, the Commonwealth demonstrated that
the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted legislation consenting to the
retrocession of jurisdiction from the federal government over this
property and giving the Executive the authority to accept that
retrocession. The Commonwealth also demonstrated that the
federal government acknowledged the Commonwealth’s consent
to the retrocession of jurisdiction over this property, and, in
response, manifested its own unequivocal intent to divest itself of
exclusive jurisdiction and to establish concurrent jurisdiction with
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania over this property. Finally,
the Commonwealth demonstrated that the Executive signed a
public notice stating that he intended to accept jurisdiction
following a 30-day period for public commentary and the
Commonwealth also demonstrated that, following that 30-day
period, agents of the parties engaged in actions that are
consistent with the transfer of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Commonwealth produced sufficient
evidence in the [c]ourt below for the [t]rial [c]ourt to conclude
that Pennsylvania accepted the retrocession of jurisdiction from
the federal government and established concurrent jurisdiction
over the property where [Rainelli] was alleged to have committed
his crimes. Thus, the [t]rial [c]ourt erred in dismissing [Rainelli’s]
charges prior to trial based upon a perceived lack of jurisdiction of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Id. at 13-14.
Rainelli counters that this Court “should affirm the trial court’s order”
because “the Commonwealth failed to establish that Governor Shapp actually
accepted the retrocession.” Rainelli’s Brief at 18.
As the issue before us presents a factual inquiry, we apply a deferential
standard of review. See Commonwealth v. Neysmith, 192 A.3d 184, 192
(Pa. Super. 2018) (applying a deferential standard where factual aspects
predominate). Thus, “we . . . shall reverse only for an abuse of discretion.
We have long held that mere errors in judgment do not amount to abuse of
discretion; instead, we look for manifest unreasonableness, or partiality,
-3-
J-A28024-20
prejudice, bias, or ill-will, or such lack of support as to be clearly erroneous.”
Id. (citations omitted).
Pertinently, the Pennsylvania Crimes Code states that “a person may
be convicted under the law of this Commonwealth of an offense committed by
his own conduct . . . if . . . the conduct which is an element of the offense or
the result which . . . occurs within this Commonwealth[.]” 18 Pa.C.S.A. §
102(a)(1).
However, the federal enclave doctrine grants exclusive jurisdiction to
the federal government when land has been purchased by the United States:
Congress shall have Power . . . [t]o exercise exclusive Legislation
. . . over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of
the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings[.]
U.S.C.A. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 17.
“Thus if the United States acquires with the ‘consent’ of the state
legislature land within the borders of that State by purchase or condemnation
for any of the purposes mentioned in Art. I, [§] 8, cl. 17 . . . the jurisdiction
of the Federal Government becomes ‘exclusive.’” Paul v. United States, 83
S.Ct. 426, 438 (1963); see also Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 50 S.Ct. 455,
457 (1930) (“[I]t long has been settled that, where lands for such a purpose
are purchased by the United States with the consent of the state legislature,
the jurisdiction theretofore residing in the state passes, in virtue of the
constitutional provision, to the United States, thereby making the jurisdiction
of the latter the sole jurisdiction.”). “The power of Congress over federal
-4-
J-A28024-20
enclaves that come within the scope of Art. I, [§] 8, cl. 17, is obviously the
same as the power of Congress over the District of Columbia.” Paul, 83 S.Ct.
at 437. Accordingly, “Pennsylvania’s criminal statutes do not apply” to federal
enclaves “any more than to a sister state.” Commonwealth v. Mangum,
332 A.2d 467, 468 (Pa. Super. 1974).
Instantly, the trial court explained that it dismissed the charges against
Rainelli because it “was not presented with sufficient evidence to determine
that the retrocession of jurisdiction was properly completed, [and was thus]
unable to rule that the Commonwealth properly obtained concurrent
jurisdiction over the VA property. Accordingly, this [c]ourt ruled that, under
the record before it, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does not have
jurisdiction to prosecute [Rainelli] for any state court offenses that occurred
on that property.” Trial Court Opinion, 5/21/20, at 8 (emphasis added). Upon
review, we discern no error in the trial court’s determination “that the credible
and competent evidence of record did not establish that the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania enjoyed concurrent jurisdiction over the VA [Medical Center]
nor did it establish that the federal government had ‘retroceded’
jurisdiction[.]” Id. at 2.
The facts established in the trial court are largely undisputed. On
January 26, 1923, the United States purchased the property for the VA Medical
Center. See Rainelli’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, 11/20/19, at
Exhibit B; Commonwealth Brief at 18. The General Assembly passed Act 407
of 1923 which provided:
-5-
J-A28024-20
The consent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby
granted to the purchase by the Government of the United States
of a certain tract of land, containing approximately one hundred
and forty-seven and five hundred and forty-three thousandths
acres, for use in the care and treatment of discharged sick and
disabled soldiers, or for other uses of the United States: said tract
of land being situate in O’Hara Township, Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania, and bounded and described as follows . . .
74 P.S. § 91 (legal description of land omitted); see also Schwartz v.
O’Hara TP. School Dist. et al., 100 A.2d 621, 622 (Pa. 1953) (“By Act of
July 2, 1923, P.L. 74 P.S. §§ 91, 92, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ceded
exclusive jurisdiction of some 147 acres of land situate in O’Hara Township to
the United States for the construction thereon of a veterans hospital under
the control and supervision of the Veterans Administration.”).
By ceding jurisdiction, the General Assembly rendered the VA Medical
Center a federal enclave within Pennsylvania:
Exclusive jurisdiction over the lands so purchased is hereby ceded
to the United States by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and
said lands shall be exempt from the payment of all taxes, State
and local: Provided, That the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania shall
retain a concurrent jurisdiction with the United States, over the
lands so acquired by the United States, for the purpose of serving
of all civil processes: And provided further, That such criminal
processes as may issue under the authority of the Commonwealth,
against any person or persons charged with crimes committed
without the area so acquired, may be executed therein, in the
same manner as though this cession had not been granted.
74 P.S. § 92; see also Schwartz, 100 A.2d at 622 (“The only reservation to
the Commonwealth was of concurrent jurisdiction within the ceded area for
the service of civil process and of criminal process for crimes committed
without the area.”).
-6-
J-A28024-20
In 1977, United States VA Administrator Max Cleland wrote a letter to
Pennsylvania Governor Milton Shapp expressing the federal government’s
desire to retrocede jurisdiction over the VA Medical Center to Pennsylvania.
On August 5, 1977, the General Assembly gave its consent to Governor Shapp
to accept the retrocession of jurisdiction and mandated procedures for
acceptance:
The consent of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby given
to the retrocession of jurisdiction by the United States over land
within the boundaries of the Commonwealth. The Governor is
hereby authorized to accept for the Commonwealth such
retrocession to partial, concurrent, or exclusive jurisdiction.
* * *
Retrocession of jurisdiction shall be effected upon the completion
of the following procedure:
(1) Written notice shall be filed with the Governor by the United
States, or any department or agency thereof, in accordance with
applicable acts of Congress.
(2) The Governor shall give public notice of retrocession of
jurisdiction by publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
(3) Written acceptance shall not be made less than 30 days after
public notice of retrocession.
74 P.S. §§ 3, 4.2
On January 14, 1978, Governor Shapp published the following notice in
the Pennsylvania Bulletin:
____________________________________________
2 The parties agree that the Commonwealth met its burden as to the first two
requirements for retrocession of jurisdiction; the dispute is whether the
Commonwealth presented evidence as to the third requirement regarding that
written acceptance of retrocession after 30 days of publication.
-7-
J-A28024-20
In accordance with the Act of August 5, 1977, P.L. — No.
47, notice is hereby given that I intend to accept concurrent
jurisdiction over certain lands in which the United States has an
interest. I intend to accept this jurisdiction by signing and dating
a letter to me from Max Cleland, Administrator of Veterans Affairs,
Washington D.C., which reads in pertinent part:
Dear Governor Shapp:
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by Public
Law 93-82, 38 United States Code 5007, on behalf of
the United States, I hereby retrocede and relinquish
to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, such measure
of legislative jurisdiction as is necessary to establish
concurrent jurisdiction over the following lands
comprising the eight Veterans Administration
Hospitals in Pennsylvania which are under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government:
Exclusive jurisdiction vested in the United
States over the lands of the Veterans Administration
Hospitals at Aspinwall . . . at the time of acquisition
by virtue of Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
Constitution. Exclusive jurisdiction of the Aspinwall
property was ceded by Pennsylvania Act of Cession,
July 2, 1923 (P.L. 987, section 2, Purdon’s
Pennsylvania Statutes Annotated, title 74, section
92). . . . .
Retrocession to concurrent jurisdiction over said
lands shall become effective upon your written
acceptance. Consent of the Commonwealth is
embodied in the Act of August 5, 1977, P.L. No. 47 of
the Pennsylvania General Assembly. It is requested
that the original of this letter be returned duly
executed for Veterans Administration records.
Sincerely,
MAX CLELAND
Administrator
-8-
J-A28024-20
I do not intend to accept this retrocession of jurisdiction less
than 30 days after publication of this notice in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments,
suggestions or objections regarding this retrocession of
jurisdiction to The Governor’s Office 225 Capitol Building,
Harrisburg, PA 17120, within 30 days after the date of publication
of this notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
[Governor Shapp’s Signature]
Governor
Commonwealth Response to Motion to Dismiss, 12/16/19, Exhibit 1.
Consistent with the foregoing, the Commonwealth had to produce
evidence of Governor Shapp’s written acceptance 30 days after the public
notice in the January 14, 1978 Pennsylvania Bulletin in order to establish
jurisdiction. See 74 P.S. § 4(3). The trial court determined that the
Commonwealth failed to do so, and thus dismissed Rainelli’s charges for lack
of jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. Neysmith, 192 A.3d at 192.
In response to Rainelli’s motion to dismiss, the Commonwealth
submitted copies of Governor Shapp’s notice in the January 14, 1978
Pennsylvania Bulletin and the relevant Pennsylvania statutes. See
Commonwealth Response to Motion to Dismiss, 12/16/19, Exhibits 1 & 2. The
only other evidence the Commonwealth proffered was a May 17, 1978
Pennsylvania State Police Special Order concerning retrocession of
jurisdiction. See id., Exhibit 3. However, the Commonwealth did not
authenticate the Special Order and “merely put [it] in as persuasive
-9-
J-A28024-20
authority.” N.T., 12/17/19, at 29;3 see also Commonwealth Response to
Motion to Dismiss, 12/16/19, at ¶ 17 (“[A]ttached is persuasive evidence that
concurrent jurisdiction was accepted.”).
Given this record, and mindful of our deferential standard of review, we
conclude that the trial court did not commit an abuse of discretion.
Specifically, the trial court did not err in finding that because “written
acceptance was required by the Pennsylvania legislature before the
retrocession became official,” and “nowhere in the record . . . is the required
written acceptance of retrocession executed by the governor ‘not less than 30
days after public notice of retrocession (after February 13, 1978).’” Trial Court
Opinion, 5/21/20, at 8. Our review reveals the court was “not presented with
sufficient evidence to determine that the retrocession of jurisdiction was
properly completed[.]” Id.
In sum, we agree with the trial court in this case that the Commonwealth
did not produce evidence of Governor Shapp’s written acceptance of
____________________________________________
3 The assistant district attorney stated:
As it relates to Exhibit Three, I merely put that in as persuasive
authority. If Your Honor does not want to take that into
consideration, that is of your choosing. I didn’t intend to
authenticate a document from 197[8] which at this point qualifies
it as an ancient document. I would simply be relying on Exhibits
One and Two as the correct law in this case which does not need
to be authenticated for purposes of the proceedings.
N.T., 12/17/19, at 29.
- 10 -
J-A28024-20
retrocession as mandated by the General Assembly to establish concurrent
jurisdiction. Therefore, we affirm the dismissal of Rainelli’s charges.
Order affirmed.
Judge McCaffery joins the memorandum.
Judge Olson concurs in the result.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 1/12/2021
- 11 -