Parnell, B. v. Folino, L. (memorandum)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

J-S42042-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 BRIAN PARNELL, : : : : : : : : : Appellant v. LOUIS FOLINO, Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 206 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Order entered on January 13, 2014 in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County, Civil Division, No. 927 A.D. 2013 BEFORE: PANELLA, JENKINS and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY MUSMANNO, J.: FILED JULY 18, 2014 pro se, from the Order denying his Praecipe for Writ of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction, and transferring the case to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm. In July 2002, Parnell was convicted of second-degree murder and See Commonwealth v. Parnell, 832 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2003) (unpublished memorandum). Subsequently, this Court affirmed the denial of three separate Petitions filed under the Post Conviction Relief Act.1 The trial court set forth the remaining procedural history as follows: [O]n December 5, 2013, [Parnell] filed with [the trial court] a [pro se] Praecipe to Proceed in Forma Pauper[i]s and a Praecipe for Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum, challenging 1 See 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546. J-S42042-14 the legality of his commitment and confinement at [the State -2- J-S42042-14 2 Parnell argued that his confinement at SCI-Greene was illegal because the court from which his judgment of sentence originated, the Chester County Court of Common Pleas, allegedly never entered a written sentencing order in his case.3] On December 6, 2013, [the trial court], by letter, informed [Parnell] that because [he] was challenging the legality of his confinement, and there [allegedly was] no order issued from [the Chester County Court of Common Pleas] directing his detention or confinement, that pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 108(A),[4] he should direct his [Praecipe] with the Court that had issued such [] Order. [Parnell] responded to [the trial letter with a letter filed on December 16, 2013[, which the trial [Parnell] filed a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Default on January 9, 2014. Trial Court Opinion, 1/13/14, at 1-2 (unnumbered, footnotes added). On January 13, 2014, the trial court entered an Order denying Praecipe for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Praecipe for Default 2 detention, it properly sounded in habeas corpus. of Corr., 81 A.3d 814, 815 (Pa. 2013) (citing Warren v. DOC, 616 A.2d habeas corpus 3 observe that, when this Cou made no mention of the absence of a sentencing order. See Parnell, 832 A.2d 541 (unpublished memorandum at 2) (discussing the sentence of life in prison imposed by the trial court on July 15, 2002). 4 Rule 108(A) provides that [a] petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of the filed with the clerk of courts of the judicial district in which the order directing the petitio entered. Pa.R.Crim.P. 108(A). -3- J-S42042-14 Judgment. The Greene County Court of Common Pleas ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this case because the proper v was the court that had imposed his judgment of sentence, i.e., the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. Accordingly, the trial court ordered that the case be transferred to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas for disposition. Parnell timely filed a pro se Notice of Appeal. this issue is dispositive of our resolution of this case:5 I. Whether the Common Pleas Court of Greene County erred in transferring venue from Greene County, where the occurrence took place, to Chester County, where neither party works or is domiciled, and whether the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure appl[y] to, and dictate[] the course of civil proceedings? Brief for Appellant at 1. a writ of habeas corpus petition will be reversed on appeal only for a Commonwealth v. Miller, 787 A.2d 1036, 1038 (Pa. Super. 2001). Parnell argues that the trial court committed legal error in ruling that it lacked jurisdiction, and by transferring the case to the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. Brief for Appellant at 5-8. Parnell maintains that a writ of habeas corpus is a civil remedy, and asserts that he properly brought this 5 -2 of his appellate brief. -4- J-S42042-14 action in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas because he is confined in Greene County. Id. at 4-5, 8. We disagree. As [Parnell] correctly indicates, a writ of habeas corpus is a civil remedy that lies solely for commitments under criminal process and lies to correct void or illegal sentences or an illegal detention, or where the record shows a trial or sentence or plea so fundamentally unfair as to amount to a denial of due process or other constitutional rights, or where for other reasons the interests of justice imperatively required it. Chadwick v. Caulfield, 834 A.2d 563[, 566] (Pa. Super. 2003). [Parnell] asserts that Pa.R.Crim.P. 108(A)[(see n.4, supra)] does not lawfully apply to his extraordinary set of circumstances for the following reasons: 1) [t]he failure of the prison, SCI-Greene, to produce a written sentencing order related to the judgment of sentence entered against him; [and] 2) [t]he Rules of Criminal Procedure do not apply to habeas corpus, a civil remedy. We are not persuaded by any of Jurisdiction for matters sounding in habeas corpus lie[s] in the court of record from which the order of detention came[.] he venue of matters brought under this chapter [habeas corpus] shall be prescribed by matters of habeas corpus Criminal Procedure. [See] Pa.R.Crim.P. 108(A). There is no applicable rule of civil procedure [that] controls venue and jurisdiction of habeas corpus *** We also believe that the official comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. tion that the criminal rule does not apply to venue and jurisdiction in this matter. The implements Section 6502(b) [controlling venue of matters of habeas corpus] of the Judicial Code as it applies to the venue for petitions for writs of habeas -5- J-S42042-14 corpus (emphasis added). detention or confinement, has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus nly a judge of the judicial district of conviction and sentencing has jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus. [See Brown, 81 A.3d at 815]. [Parnell] contends that the failure of SCI-Greene to produce a written sentencing order directing [his] detention renders Pa.R.Crim.P[.] 108(A) inapplicable to his [Praecipe]. We disagree. In Brown, [supra,] the inmate appealed the alleging that his confinement was illegal due to an alleged failure of the prison to produce a written sentencing order, for lack of jurisdiction. [Id. at 814]. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that[,] to the extent the Commonwealth Court dismissed habeas corpus for lack of jurisdi habeas corpus lie in the jurisdiction and venue of the court of Id. at 815]. The Supreme Court vacated the order of the Commonwealth Court and remanded the issue back to the Philadelphia County sentence originated. Id. The issue presently before [the trial c]ourt is identical and [the trial c]ourt will act accordingly. Trial Court Opinion, 1/13/14, at 2-4 (unnumbered, emphasis in original). See id.; see also 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5103(a) (providing, in releva Commonwealth[,] but which is commenced in any other tribunal of this Commonwealth[,] shall be transferred by the other tribunal to the proper -6- J-S42042-14 l be treated as if originally filed in the transferee 6 Based upon the foregoing, we discern no error by the trial court and Common Pleas. Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 7/18/2014 6 We direct the prothonotary or clerk of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas to ensure the transfer of the record, and provide a certified copy of the docket entries, to the prothonotary or clerk of the Chester County Court of Common Pleas. See Brown, 81 A.3d at 815; see also Pa.R.C.P. 213(f). cipe for Writ of Habeas Corpus is not contained in the certified record. The Greene County clerk/prothonotary shall ensure transmittal of this document to Chester County. -7-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.