Keller v. Kinsley
| Decision Date | 26 June 1992 |
| Parties | John KELLER, Appellant, v. Karen F. KINSLEY, a/k/a Karen F. Irwin, a/k/a Karen F. Balough, a/k/a Karen F. Casto, a/k/a Karen F. Perry, a/k/a Karen F. Skocz, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
John Keller, appellant, pro se.
Karen Kinsley, appellee, pro se.
Before DEL SOLE, TAMILIA and HESTER, JJ.
This is an appeal from an order denying Appellant's request for permission to proceed in forma pauperis. After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, unlawful restraint, and indecent assault and was sentenced to serve a term of not less than six and one-half years nor more than twenty years at the State Correctional Institution in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Following his conviction, Appellant filed a Petition to proceed in forma pauperis, in a civil proceeding, which was denied based upon the trial court's conclusion that the claims raised in Appellant's complaint were a direct collateral attack on Appellant's criminal conviction and thus could not be properly raised in a civil suit. Appellant filed a Motion requesting that the trial court vacate its order. The motion was denied. Appellant then filed a pro se appeal to this court and the trial court accordingly ordered that Appellant could proceed, for the purpose of the current appeal, in forma pauperis.
In its opinion, the trial court did not expressly state that it dismissed Appellant's complaint. However, since the court's decision to deny Appellant's request to proceed in forma pauperis was based on its belief that the claims set forth in Appellant's complaint were frivolous, the trial court, in effect, dismissed Appellant's complaint. In Motheral v. Burkhart, 400 Pa.Super. 408, 583 A.2d 1180 (1990) (en banc ), this court stressed the importance of examining the practical effects of an order.
Our Supreme Court has [Fried v. Fried ], 509 Pa. at 93-94, 501 A.2d at 213 [quoting T.C.R. Realty, Inc. v. Cox, 472 Pa. 331, 337, 372 A.2d 721, 724 (1977) ] (additional citations omitted). Whether an order is final and appealable is a judicial determination which cannot be made without an examination of the order's practical ramifications. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Atlantic Richfield Company, 482 Pa. 615, 618, 394 A.2d 491, 493 (1978) [quoting Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Co., 465 Pa. 225, 228, 348 A.2d 734, 735 (1975) ].
Motheral v. Burkhardt, 400 Pa.Super. 408, 414, 583 A.2d 1180, 1184 (1990) (en banc ). The trial court's decision to deny Appellant's petition to proceed in forma pauperis had the practical effect of dismissing Appellant's complaint. Therefore, we conclude that the current appeal from the order denying the petition is properly before this court.
Through this appeal, Appellant alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Appellant's in forma pauperis petition. Appellant also argues that the court's conclusion, that Appellant was attempting to directly collaterally attack his conviction through means of the present action, was erroneous. We find no merit in Appellant's claims and accordingly affirm the order of the trial court.
It is clear from our review of the record, that the major contention raised in Appellant's complaint is that he was unjustly convicted. He asserts that his incarceration is a direct result of Appellee's false allegations. In addition to requesting that the court award him One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00) in damages, Appellant requests that the court also award him a new jury trial and any other relief that it "may deem just, proper, and equitable."
It is apparent, from the allegations contained in his complaint and from the type of relief that he has requested, that Appellant, is attempting to collaterally attack his criminal conviction through means of a civil action. Having reviewed the record for the purpose of determining whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law, we conclude that the trial court's opinion is well founded in both law and fact. The trial court correctly held that the Post-Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542 is the only means by which Appellant could collaterally attack his conviction.
§ 9542. Scope of subchapter
This subchapter provides for an action by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guarrasi v. Officer
...convictions; Plaintiff's PCRA petition provides the only means to challenge the legality of his convictions. See Keller v. Kinsley, 415 Pa.Super. 366, 609 A.2d 567 (1992) (civil action alleging unjust conviction and incarceration cannot be used to collaterally attack conviction; PCRA provid......
-
McGriff v. Vidovich
...An action is frivolous under this provision, if, on its face, it does not set forth a valid cause of action. Keller v. Kinsley, 415 Pa. Superior Ct. 366, 609 A.2d 567 (1992). McGriff contends that a false arrest is an arrest made without probable cause, and, he argues, without the purported......
-
Barros v. Martin
...apparently remains incarcerated.” (Trial court 1925(a) opinion at 2, n. 1 (citing Guarrasi, 25 A.3d at 402); and Keller v. Kinsley, 415 Pa.Super. 366, 609 A.2d 567, 568 (1992).) Next, we will address Barros' argument that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard to the extent that h......
-
Clark v. Peugh
..."collaterally attack his criminal conviction through means of a civil action" asserting common law claims. Keller v. Kinsley , 415 Pa.Super. 366, 609 A.2d 567, 568-69 (1992) (affirming trial court's finding that civil action by a criminal defendant against the victim alleging false testimon......