Commonwealth v. Horn
Decision Date | 04 October 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 1918 WDA 2016,1918 WDA 2016 |
Citation | 172 A.3d 1133 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Timothy HORN, Appellant |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Phillip O. Robertson, Hollidaysburg, for appellant.
William J. Higgins, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Bedford, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Appellant, Timothy Horn, appeals from the order entered on November 30, 2016, denying his "Petition to Remove Himself from the ARD[1 ] Program." We quash this appeal.
On July 22, 2015, Appellant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence ("DUI") of a controlled substance. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2). On April 15, 2016, Appellant petitioned for acceptance into the ARD program. The Commonwealth approved Appellant's petition and, on June 2, 2016, the trial court accepted Appellant into the ARD program. Trial Court Order, 6/2/16, at 1–2.
On September 23, 2016, Appellant filed a "Petition to Remove Himself from the ARD Program" (hereinafter "Appellant's Petition"). Within his petition, Appellant simply claimed:
[Appellant has] decided that despite the fact that he has been placed on the [ARD] Program, that he desires to contest the charges against him. Therefore he does not wish to be in the [ARD] Program any longer and would desire to proceed to a trial by [c]ourt.
Appellant's Petition, 9/23/16, at 1.2
On November 30, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on Appellant's Petition and, at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's Petition on the record.3 N.T. Hearing, 11/30/16, at 6. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on December 19, 2016. He raises one claim on appeal:
Whether or not the trial court erred by denying [Appellant's] Petition to Remove Himself from the ARD Program?
Appellant's Brief at 4 (some internal capitalization omitted).
As we have explained, prior to reaching the merits of any appeal, this Court must "first ascertain whether the [order appealed from] is properly appealable." Commonwealth v. Borrero, 692 A.2d 158, 159 (Pa. Super. 1997). Indeed, since "the question of appealability implicates the jurisdiction of this Court[, the issue] may be raised by [this] Court sua sponte." Commonwealth v. Baio, 898 A.2d 1095, 1098 (Pa. Super. 2006).
In general, this Court's jurisdiction "extends only to review of final orders." Rae v. Pa. Funeral Dir's Ass'n, 602 Pa. 65, 977 A.2d 1121, 1124–1125 (2009) ; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742 ; Pa.R.A.P. 341(a). A final order is defined as any order that: "(1) disposes of all claims and of all parties; [ ] (2) is explicitly defined as a final order by statute; or (3) is entered as a final order pursuant to [ Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341(c) ]." Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). With respect to criminal cases, the general rule "is that a defendant may appeal only from a final judgment of sentence, and an appeal from any prior order or judgment will be quashed." Commonwealth v. Kurilla, 391 Pa.Super. 241, 570 A.2d 1073, 1073 (1990). The purpose of this rule is to "prevent undue delay and avoid the disruption of criminal cases by piecemeal appellate review." Commonwealth v. Scott, 396 Pa.Super. 339, 578 A.2d 933, 941 (1990) ( ).
In this case, Appellant was not convicted of any crime and the trial court did not impose a judgment of sentence. Rather, Appellant was charged with DUI and the trial judge admitted Appellant into an ARD program pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3807.
Section 3807, which is entitled "Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition," declares, in relevant part:
The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure provide a comprehensive series of rules concerning the ARD program. As is relevant to the case at bar, the rules declare:
Therefore, in accordance with the above: Appellant was not permitted to plead guilty prior to being accepted into the ARD program; the trial court "postponed ... further proceedings on the charges" after Appellant was accepted into the ARD program; if Appellant chooses to complete the program, Appellant "may move the [trial] court for an order dismissing the charges;" if there are no objections to Appellant's motion to dismiss, the trial court must dismiss the charges and, if no further objections are filed, the trial court must order the expungement of Appellant's arrest record; and, if Appellant fails to complete the program or violates a condition of the program, the "[trial] court shall direct the attorney for the Commonwealth to proceed on the charges as prescribed in the Rules of Criminal Procedure" and Appellant cannot appeal from the trial court's order terminating his participation in the program. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 310 – 320 and 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3807(e).
Given the unique nature of an order that accepts a defendant into a ARD program, this Court has held that "[a]cceptance of ARD is an interlocutory matter and consequently is not appealable." Commonwealth v. Getz, 410 Pa.Super. 28, 598 A.2d 1309, 1309 (1991). As we explained:
Id. at 1309 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added); see also Commonwealth v. Feagley, 371 Pa.Super. 593, 538 A.2d 895 (1988) ( )(superseded by rule on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Coleman, 854 A.2d 978 (Pa. Super. 2004) ).
In accordance the above precedent, we conclude that the trial court's order denying Appellant's "Petition to Remove Himself from the ARD Program." is not a final order, as acceptance into—and termination of—the ARD program is an interlocutory matter. Getz, 598 A.2d at 1309. Therefore, Appellant is appealing from an interlocutory...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Commonwealth v. Alston
...taken from a final order or judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Wright , 178 A.3d 884 (Pa.Super. 2018) ; Commonwealth v. Horn , 172 A.3d 1133, 1136 (Pa. Super. 2017). Despite the general rule, an appeal may be taken from a nonfinal order if the order is a collateral order, as codified at ......
-
J.F. v. Dep't of Human Servs.
...considered interlocutory and therefore not appealable until final resolution of the charges. See , e.g. , Commonwealth v. Horn , 172 A.3d 1133, 1137 (Pa. Super. 2017) ("Given the unique nature of an order that accepts a defendant into a ARD program, this [c]ourt has held that ‘[a]cceptance ......
-
Commonwealth v. Powell
...following a jurisdictional question only if the [appellate] court is found to possess jurisdiction."); see also Commonwealth v. Horn , 172 A.3d 1133, 1135-36 (Pa. Super. 2017) (same).Generally, only final orders are immediately reviewable by an appellate court, in large part because this pr......
-
Commonwealth v. Worzel
...and the trial court admitted her into an ARD program pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3807. Under these circumstances,and consonant with Getz and Horn, the trial court's April 27, 2022 denying the Commonwealth's motion to terminate Worzel's participation in ARD and extending her time in the progr......