Opinion
No. 2223 C.D. 2014
07-30-2015
Steven McCrae, Petitioner v. Philadelphia Clerk of Courts, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE BROBSON
Petitioner Steven McCrae (Petitioner) petitions, pro se, for review of a final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), dated November 18, 2014, dismissing his appeal with prejudice. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Petitioner submitted a request under the Right to Know Law (RTKL) to the Philadelphia Clerk of Courts (Clerk), for a certified copy of the sentencing order for case #CP-51-CR-0204521-1999. (Certified Record (C.R.), Item No. 5.) Petitioner alleges that the Clerk responded to the request by providing him with a copy of what he refers to as a bill of information. (Id.) On or about November 12, 2014, Petitioner filed an appeal to the OOR, asserting that the Clerk was requested to provide a copy of his sentencing order, not a bill of information. (Id.) On November 18, 2014, the OOR issued a final determination dismissing the appeal with prejudice, stating that the Clerk is a judicial agency and not subject to OOR's jurisdiction. (C.R., Item No. 6.) Petitioner then petitioned this Court for review.
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-.3104.
Counsel did not enter an appearance on behalf of the Clerk, and the Clerk did not file a brief in this matter. By order dated June 5, 2015, the Court precluded the Clerk from filing a brief or participating in oral argument.
It appears that Petitioner may have requested a copy of the sentencing order on August 31, 2014, and again on October 27, 2014.
On appeal, Petitioner argues that (1) the OOR erred as a matter of law in concluding that it lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's appeal; (2) the denial of the request violated Petitioner's substantive and procedural due process rights; and (3) the Clerk's response to the RTKL request was improper because the Clerk provided a bill of information and not the requested sentencing order.
We review OOR's statutory jurisdiction as a matter of law. Hearst Television, Inc. d/b/a WGAL-TV v. Norris, 54 A.3d 23, 29 (Pa. 2012). Accordingly, our standard of review is plenary. Dep't of Labor & Indus, v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823, 828 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
We agree with the OOR that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a denial of a RTKL request made to the Clerk. Our Court recently explained the OOR's jurisdiction over judicial agencies in Faulk v. Philadelphia Clerk of Courts, ___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1904 C.D. 2014, filed May 28, 2015), as follows:
The RTKL explicitly confers jurisdiction on appeals officers within OOR to render determinations
regarding records disputes involving Commonwealth and local agencies. Section 503(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.503(a). By contrast, appeals of disputes involving a judicial agency are appealed to an appeals officer so designated by that judicial agency. Sections 503(b) and 1101(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §§ 67.503(b), 67.1101(a).Faulk, slip op. at 1-2 (alterations in original). Thus, because the OOR does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a judicial agency's denial of a RTKL request, the OOR properly dismissed Petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
"Judicial agency" is defined by the RTKL as, "[a] court of the Commonwealth or any other entity or office of the unified judicial system." Section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102. "[C]lerks of court . . . are personnel of the unified judicial system." League of Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh v. Allegheny Cnty., 819 A.2d 155, 158 n. 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (citing Section 102 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa. C.S. § 102). Based on the express terms of the RTKL, judicial agencies, including Clerk, are not subject to OOR's jurisdiction. 65 P.S. § 67.503(b); see Frazier v. Phila. Cnty. Office of Prothonotary, 58 A.3d 858 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); Antidormi v. Lackawanna Cnty. Clerk of Courts (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 274 C.D. 2011, filed September 14, 2011) (unreported) . . . . Because OOR lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, OOR's dismissal with prejudice was proper. Frazier.
As we explained in Faulk, pursuant to Section 1301(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1301(a), Petitioner should have appealed within 15 days to the appeals officer designated by the Clerk, not to the OOR. Faulk, slip opin. at 2.
Even if the OOR had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, we would conclude that the appeal does not have merit. First, the "RTKL limits the records that judicial agencies must disclose to financial records." Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna Cnty. v. Pa. Office of Open Records, 2 A.3d 810, 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). A sentencing order is not a financial record, and, therefore, it is not considered a "public record" of the judicial agency under the RTKL. Thus, the Clerk is not required under the RTKL to grant the request.
We note that the RTKL is not the sole mechanism for obtaining records from judicial agencies. See Faulk, slip opin. at 3. The fact that a sentencing order does not qualify as a "public record" under the RTKL does not prevent Petitioner from receiving his request through another means. "[T]he courts are always open under our Constitution, and court records remain accessible to members of the public outside the RTKL." Id. The RTKL simply is not the appropriate vehicle and the OOR is not the appropriate venue through which to obtain a copy of a sentencing order from the Clerk.
For instance, Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 113(A) provides, in part, that "[t]he clerk of courts shall maintain the criminal case file for the court of common pleas," including "orders," and "[u]pon request, the clerk shall provide copies at a reasonable cost."
It appears that the Clerk, as part of its response to Petitioner's RTKL request, provided Petitioner with the following explanation regarding the Clerk's production of responsive documents that are not entitled "sentencing order." The letter provides that:
The [s]entencing order that you have requested is a valid order. It is written, dated and signed as required. The reason your order looks different from those that are more recent is because of the format which was used during the time period of your sentencing.
Previously, the sentencing information was written directly on the bill which would have included the final disposition of the court as well as the Judge's signature. At that time, separate sentence orders were not generated.
Thus, because we have ruled that the OOR properly dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, we need not address Petitioner's remaining arguments.
We note that Petitioner does not provide any legal argument or cite to any authority to support the assertion that his substantive and procedural due process rights were violated as a result of the Clerk's denial. --------
Accordingly, the final determination of the OOR is affirmed.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2015, the final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), dated November 18, 2014, is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
(C.R., Item No. 5, p. 19.) Thus, it is possible that the Clerk fully responded to Petitioner's request.