Wakefield, D. v. Gilmore, R. ( 2020 )

J-S21019-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DALE MICHAEL WAKEFIELD : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT GILMORE : No. 1371 WDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered August 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County Civil Division at
No(s): 517 Civil 2019
BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED JUNE 03, 2020
Appellant, Dale Michael Wakefield, appeals pro se from the August 26,
2019 Order entered in the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas Civil
Division dismissing his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and denying his
request to proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). After careful review, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history are, briefly, as follows. Since
2014, Appellant has been serving a life sentence at SCI-Somerset imposed
after he pleaded guilty to Murder and Aggravated Assault.
In early 2018, the Commonwealth charged Appellant with one count
each of Criminal Homicide, Assault by Prisoner, and Aggravated Assault after
prison staff discovered Appellant’s cellmate dead in their shared cell in the
Restricted Housing Unit. On May 14, 2018, the Commonwealth filed a notice
of aggravating circumstances and intent to seek the death penalty. Appellant
waived his right to counsel and filed pro se numerous pretrial motions.
J-S21019-20
On May 2, 2018, Appellant filed pro se1 a Request to Proceed IFP and a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he claimed that Criminal Homicide
is not a valid charge and that it, therefore, fails to confer necessary subject
matter jurisdiction over his case to the court of common pleas. The civil
division of the Somerset County Court of Common Pleas transferred the
Petition to the criminal division for disposition.
On January 25, 2019, the criminal trial court held a hearing on
Appellant’s Petition, and thereafter denied it.2
Relevant to this Appeal, on August 15, 2019, Appellant again filed pro
se in the civil division a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and request to
proceed IFP raising the same issues and presenting the same arguments as
in his May 2, 2018 Petition, i.e., that Criminal Homicide is a non-existent
offense and that the criminal division of the court of common pleas, therefore,
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The civil division declined to transfer this
Petition to the criminal division and, instead, denied Appellant’s request to
____________________________________________
1 See Docket Number 249 Civil 2018.
2 The certified record for the instant appeal contains the Notes of Testimony
from the January 25, 2019 hearing on Appellant’s first Petition for Habeas
Corpus and a copy of the Petition, admitted as an Exhibit.
-2-
J-S21019-20
proceed IFP and dismissed Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.3
This appeal followed.4
Appellant raises the following issues for our review:
[1.] Whether the lower court judge abused his discretion in
denying the Writ of Habeas Corpus by ignoring lack of subject
matter jurisdiction?
[2.] Whether the lower court judge abused his discretion in
denying the Writ of Habeas Corpus by ignoring and disregarding
settled law and intervening binding precedent in the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Kemmerer, []
584 A.2d 940 ([Pa.] 1991)?
[3.] Whether the lower court judge abused his discretion by
unlawfully suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?
[4.] Whether the lower court judge abused his discretion and
obstructed justice by violating [] Appellant’s state and federal
constitutional rights by suspending the writ of habeas corpus?
[5.] Whether the lower court judge abused his discretion and
willfully disregarded substantive due process, along with
procedural due process of Pa.R.Crim.P. 502?
[6.] Whether the lower court judge abused his discretion and
cause[d] a miscarriage of justice by denying the writ of habeas
corpus where there was no lawful authority to arrest and
subsequently detain Appellant?
[7.] Whether the lower court judge abused his discretion and
violated his oath of office by denying the writ of habeas corpus to
an innocent petitioner?
____________________________________________
3 The trial court ruled that Appellant’s reliance on Commonwealth v.
Kemmerer, 584 A.2d 940 (Pa. 1991), discussed infra, was misplaced and,
therefore, his substantive claims were frivolous.
4 Appellant complied with the trial court’s Order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)
Statement. The trial court did not file a Rule 1925(a) Opinion.
-3-
J-S21019-20
[8.] Whether the lower court judge abused his discretion by
suspending the writ of habeas corpus in violation of separation of
powers?
Appellant’s Brief at 2-3.
Each of Appellant’s issues challenges the trial court’s Order dismissing
his second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
We review the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus for an abuse
of discretion. Rivera v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 837 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. Super.
2003).
Before we address the merits of Appellant’s claims, we consider whether
Appellant’s Petition was properly before the trial court.
Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, once a court of competent
jurisdiction considers and decides an issue, the court’s final judgment
constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim.
Mariner Chestnut Partners, L.P. v. Lenfest, 152 A.3d 265, 286 (Pa. Super.
2016). The application of res judicata “reflects the refusal of the law to
tolerate a multiplicity of litigation.” Day v. Volkswagenwerk
Aktiengesellschaft, 464 A.2d 1313, 1316 (Pa. Super. 1983). The doctrine
bars a subsequent action when both lawsuits contain the following elements
in common:
(1) identity of the thing sued upon; (2) identity of the cause of
action; (3) identity of the parties; (4) identity of the capacity of
the parties.
-4-
J-S21019-20
Robinson Coal Co. v. Goodall, 72 A.3d 685, 689 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citations
and internal punctuation omitted). Moreover,
[i]n determining whether res judicata should apply, a court may
consider whether the factual allegations of both actions are the
same, whether the same evidence is necessary to prove each
action and whether both actions seek compensation for the same
damages. If the acts or transactions giving rise to causes of action
are identical, there may be sufficient identity between two actions
for the [holding] in the first action to be res judicata in the second.
Dempsey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 653 A.2d 679, 681 (Pa. Super. 1995) (en
banc) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
As noted above, Appellant had previously filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus in which, relying on Kemmerer, supra,5 as he does here, he
challenged the “existence” of the offense of Criminal Homicide and asserted
that its “non-existence” resulted in the court’s lack of subject matter
jurisdiction over his case. See N.T., 1/25/19 at 14-20. After hearing
argument, the criminal division of the Somerset County Court of Common
Pleas dismissed Appellant’s Petition.6 Id. at 20.
____________________________________________
5 In Kemmerer, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Pa.R.Crim.P.
1120(d) did not preclude the Commonwealth from reprosecuting the
defendant for second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and voluntary
manslaughter after a jury found the defendant not guilty of first-degree
murder and voluntary manslaughter. Kemmerer, 584 A.2d at 945. In so
holding, the Court rejected the defendant’s claim that because the various
degrees of manslaughter and murder fell under the umbrella of criminal
homicide, they are necessarily included in one another. Id. at 944-45.
6 The trial court concluded that 18 Pa.C.S. § 2501(a), defining Criminal
Homicide, is a constitutionally appropriate charge, and, therefore, Appellant’s
claims lacked merit.
-5-
J-S21019-20
In the instant Petition, filed at a separate civil docket number, Appellant
raised the same claims and presented the same arguments as those
previously adjudicated by the criminal division of the Court of Common Pleas.
In particular, the factual allegations in the Petitions are the same, the acts
giving rise to the relief sought by Appellant are the same, the identity and
capacity of the parties are the same, and the relief sought is the same.
Following our review, we conclude that the doctrine of res judicata
barred Appellant from seeking the same relief in the instant Petition.
Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Appellant’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
Order affirmed.7
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 6/3/2020
____________________________________________
7 It is well-settled that we may affirm on different grounds than those
advanced by the trial court. Commonwealth v. Thompson, 778 A.2d 1215,
1223 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2001).
-6-