In Re: Coleman, S. v. SCI Albion (memorandum)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S44030-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN RE: COLEMAN, SHERMAN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. SCI ALBION Appellee No. 430 WDA 2014 Appeal from the Order Entered February 24, 2014 In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-MD-0000025-2014 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., and OTT, J. MEMORANDUM BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED AUGUST 14, 2014 Sherman Coleman appeals, pro se, from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County denying his petition for review of the led against the Superintendent of SCI-Albion.1 After careful review, we reverse and remand. In November 2013, Coleman filed a private criminal complaint alleging that the Superintendent of SCI-Albion, Nancy Giroux, committed the crime ____________________________________________ 1 Even though Coleman filed his complaint against a Department of private criminal complaint, jurisdiction lies with the Superior Court. Commonwealth v. Smith, 4 A.3d 227, 229 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). J-S44030-14 sion2 in violation of 18 Pa.C[.]S[.] § 5301, et seq., by . . . illegally detain[ing him] in this State Correctional Institution in violation of officer at SCI-Albion had no copy of his sentencing order, the state prison Complaint, 11/27/13, at 2. After review, the District Attorney of Erie County On February 3, 2014, Coleman filed a petition for review, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 506, which states: Rule 506. Approval of Private Complaints (A) When the affiant is not a law enforcement officer, the complaint shall be submitted to an attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall approve or disapprove it without unreasonable delay. ____________________________________________ 2 Pursuant to section 5301 of the Crimes Code, a person is guilty of the crime of official oppression, if he or she: [A]cting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, knowing that his conduct is illegal, he: (1) subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or (2) denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity. 18 Pa.C.S. § 5301. -2- J-S44030-14 (B) If the attorney for the Commonwealth: (1) approves the complaint, the attorney shall indicate this decision on the complaint form and transmit it to the issuing authority; (2) disapproves the complaint, the attorney shall state the reasons on the complaint form and return it to the affiant. Thereafter, the affiant may petition the court of common pleas for review of the decision. Pa.R.Crim.P. 506 (emphasis added). The Commonwealth responded to disapprove his complaint: was a policy determination, and does not represent an abuse of discretion, nor was it made in bad faith, the result of fraud, or unconstitutional. At trial, the Commonwealth would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) that Ms. Giroux, as Superintendent, has subjected [Coleman] to unlawful detention; 2) that Ms. Giroux, in so subjecting [Coleman], did so in her capacity as Superintendent; and 3) that Ms. Giroux so detained [Coleman] knowing said confinement was illegal. The Commonwealth does not believe it could successfully prosecute Ms. Giroux, as it does not believe it could prove, unanimously, beyond a reasonable doubt, either elements (1) or (3) of the crime of Official Oppression. Criminal Complaint, 2/21/14, at 2 (emphasis added). On February 24, 2014, the tri -3- J-S44030-14 abuse his discretion. Coleman now appeals, claiming that: The trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for criminal complaint against Nancy Giroux at SCI-Albion, that set forth a strong prima facie showing that Giroux is subjecting him to official oppression, involuntary servitude, peonage, and penal servitude, as she is unlawfully restraining him of his liberty in violation of his (5th), (8th), (13th), and (14th) amendment rights to both the state and federal constitutions, because [he] has not ever been sentenced by a court of law through a legal written, signed, and sealed sentencing order and judgment. Our Court has consistently held that a determination that a private In re Private Complaint of Adams, 764 A.2d 577 (Pa. Super. 2000). When a policy considerations, then the trial court must defer to the prosecutor's discretion absent a gross abuse of that discretion. In re Private Crim. Complaint of Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. 2005). Thereafter, the of discretion, in keeping with settled principles of appellate review of discretionary matters. Commonwealth v. Michaliga, 947 A.2d 786, 791 (Pa. Super. 2008). policy reasons carries a presumption of good faith and soundness. Id. The complainant, here Coleman, must create a record that demonstrates the -4- J-S44030-14 contrary. Id. More specifically, Coleman must show in his Rule 506 petition unted to bad faith, fraud or unconstitutionality. In re Private Criminal Complaint of Rafferty, 969 A.2d 578, 581-82 (Pa. Super. 2009). He must show that the facts of the patently discriminatory, arbitrary or pretextual, and therefore, not in the public interest. Michaliga, 947 A.2d at 791-92. Section 9764 of the Sentencing Code states, in part, that Upon commitment of an inmate to the custody of the Department of Corrections, the sheriff or transporting official shall provide to the institution's records officer or duty officer, in addition to a copy of the court commitment form DC-300B generated from the Common Pleas Criminal Court Case Management System of the unified judicial system . . . [a] copy of the sentencing order and any detainers filed against the inmate which the county has notice. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9764(a)(8) (emphasis added); see also Gibson v. Wererowicz, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97657 at *3 n.6 (E.D. Pa. March 5, 2013) (section 9764(a)(8) regulates the "exchange of prisoner information between the state and county prison systems."). Recently, our Court found reasoning from a non-precedential Commonwealth Court decision, Travis v. Giroux, 83 A.3d 525 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), both probative and instructive on the interpretation of section 9764 sentencing order. In Joseph v. Glunt, 2014 PA Super 107 (Pa. Super. filed May 23, 2014), our Court reiterated: -5- J-S44030-14 None of the provisions of section 9764 indicate an affirmative obligation on the part of the DOC to maintain and produce the documents enumerated in subsection 9764(a) upon the request of the incarcerated person. Moreover, section 9764 neither expressly vests, nor implies the vestiture, in a prisoner of any remedy for deviation from the procedures described within. Id. at *13. In Joseph, the DOC similarly did not possess a sentencing order advanced by Coleman under section 9764. However, because the trial court sentencing proceeding or a separate valid sentencing order existed, our ilure to cite any authority, demonstrating that the undisputed record of his judgment of sentence maintained by the sentencing court constituted insufficient authority for his detention, defeated his claim on appeal. Id. at *4. Instantly, the record contains the following response from a grievance officer at SCIorder: A DC-300B was received from the sentencing court when you arrived. Even if there is no written formal order of sentencing, you can be held by the Department [of Corrections] on the authority of this form prepared by the Office of the Clerk of Courts in the sentencing county. Thus, the Department of Corrections will not release you based on the reasons you assert in your grievance, which is hereby denied. Your request for immediate release is denied. Grievance Decision by Valarie C. Kusiak, 10/9/2013, at 1-D (emphasis added). A DC- judgment of sentence and is completed by the designated person acting -6- J-S44030-14 under the jurisdiction and authority of the Court of Common Pleas Case Management System of the unified judicial system. In his petition for review, Coleman acknowledges that a judgment of sentence was rendered against him on September 13, 1988, by the written judgment of sentence order [entering] it onto the records of the court to stand as proof and verity [sic] of the conviction, sentence, sentencing conditions, the applicable fees and costs, what statute authorized the sentencing judge to impose the sentence, and any transfer of (custody Id. at 3, 7-8. In essence, Coleman alleges that no sentencing order was ever completed, forwarded to the clerk of courts and made part of the official record. Id. at 8. Finally, Coleman based solely upon the DC-300B form, where the form is nothing more than a warrant of commitment that supports the sentencing order. We are inclined to agree with his position. Instantly, there is nothing in the record indicating that a valid sentencing orde SCI-Albion could well be a violation of section 9764. Wooden, supra at eemed a record of the -7- J-S44030-14 detention notwithstanding the absence of a written sentencing order under the current record is compounded by the fact that Coleman was sentenced in 1988 in Allegheny County and the record before us is confined to the private criminal complaint proceedings initiated in Erie County in November 2013. Without proof that a valid sente case was entered on the docket in Allegheny County, the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for review. Michaliga, supra.3 review and remand this matter to the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether, in fact, a valid sentencing order was docketed in complaint against the Superintendent of Erie County. Order reversed. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision. Jurisdiction relinquished. ____________________________________________ 3 Even though Coleman acknowledges that a September 13, 1988, judgment of sentence was rendered against him in Allegheny County, we distinguish the facts of this case where we have absolutely no criminal matter, including his convictions and resulting sentence. Cf. Wooden, supra (trial court had both criminal docket and transcript of sentencing hearing to confirm impositi sentence); Travis, supra (section 9764(a)(8) claim meritless where -8- J-S44030-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 8/14/2014 -9-
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.
