Opinion
No. 333 C.D. 2014
10-17-2014
Winston J. Banks, Appellant v. City of Philadelphia Bureau of Administrative Adjudication
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
Winston J. Banks (Banks) appeals pro se from the January 23, 2014 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) denying his appeal from the decision of the City of Philadelphia Bureau of Administrative Adjudication (BAA) which found him liable for a parking ticket issued on October 5, 2012, for parking in a "stopping prohibited" zone. We affirm.
The underlying facts of this case are not in dispute. Banks acknowledges that on October 5, 2012, he parked his car at the corner of 30th and Chestnut Streets in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania near the United States Post Office (post office) in a "stopping prohibited" zone and was issued a parking ticket by the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Banks appealed the ticket to the BAA, arguing that there were "extraordinary circumstances," namely construction, which reduced the number of available, legal parking spaces on the block where he wanted to park. The BAA conducted two administrative hearings, on April 16, 2013, and May 23, 2013, respectively. At these hearings, Banks testified that when he arrived at the post office on the evening of October 5, 2012, all of the parking spots in front of the post office were occupied, a free parking area adjacent to the post office was unavailable due to construction, and the parking spots directly across from the post office on Chestnut Street were inaccessible due to roadwork in that area. Banks admitted that he parked around the corner on 30th Street in a prohibited area. Banks stated that he proceeded inside the post office, purchased stamps from an automated machine, and returned to his vehicle, at which time an officer was issuing him a ticket. At the conclusion of the May 23, 2013 hearing, the hearing officer found Banks liable for the ticket.
Banks noted that a companion remained in the passenger seat and the keys remained in the ignition in case the vehicle had to be moved.
Banks thereafter filed an appeal with the trial court. In a brief submitted to the trial court, Banks reiterated his allegation that the parking ticket should be dismissed in light of extenuating circumstances, namely the construction and roadwork in the area around the post office which greatly reduced the number of available, legal parking spots. The trial court heard oral argument on January 23, 2014. Following this argument, the trial court issued an order denying Banks' appeal. Banks then filed a notice of appeal with the trial court.
We note that in his briefs to the BAA and trial court, Banks attached several exhibits, including a receipt for the stamps purchased at 7:44 p.m. on October 5, 2012; photographs of the area in which he parked marked with a sign stating "NO STOPPING ANY TIME"; a photo of the nearby construction; and a copy of the ticket issued at 7:45 p.m. in the amount of $76.00 for "STOPPING PROHIBITED."
By order dated February 24, 2014, the trial court directed Banks to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (Pa.R.A.P.) 1925(b). Banks proceeded to file a four-page document including a factual history, statement of errors, answers, and conclusion. Banks raised the following errors:
a. Appellant infers that Trial Judge did not review entire Brief regarding Plaintiff's position.(Banks' Statement of Errors, filed March 13, 2014, p. 2.)
b. Appellant infers that Trial Judge, exercised his discretion, but ruled accordingly based on the previous Case that was before the Court. Appellant interpreted that the trial Judge was establishing a 'consistent' degree of Ruling yet the circumstances were different.
c. Can building construction of existing and future projects that effect [sic] the neighboring area alter the traffic pattern.
d. Can building and construction projects effect [sic] the availability of existing public parking.
e. Should the public be properly informed of any and all changes in the traffic pattern by notification of signs or persons.
In a subsequent opinion in support of its order, the trial court concluded that Banks failed to raise his issues on appeal in accordance with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), noting that his statement of errors consisted of multiple pages following a "short oral argument, not a trial," and the issues raised were "cumulative and redundant." (Trial court op. at 4.) The trial court held that Banks' failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) precluded it "from providing a clear and meaningful review of his claims" and hence, such claims were waived. Id. The trial court noted that, in the event that Banks' claims were not waived, Banks did not allege that the BAA violated his constitutional rights or committed an error of law and that Banks' admission that he parked in a "stopping prohibited" zone constituted substantial evidence in support of the BAA's decision. Thus, the trial court alternatively held that the BAA properly found Banks liable for the parking ticket.
On appeal to this Court, Banks again argues that the parking ticket should be dismissed because the construction around the post office reduced the number of available, legal parking spots in the area. However, before we reach the merits of this argument, we must address BAA's contention that Banks' appeal should be dismissed in light of his failure to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).
Where the trial court does not take additional evidence, our scope of review of the decision of a local agency is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether the procedure before the local agency was contrary to statute, and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. §754(b); Kovler v. Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, 6 A.3d 1060 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), appeal denied, 20 A.3d 490 (Pa. 2011). --------
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4) sets forth the following requirements for a statement of errors complained of on appeal:
(i) The Statement shall set forth only those rulings or errors that the appellant intends to challenge.
(ii) The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues for the judge. The judge shall not require the citation to authorities; however, appellant may choose to include pertinent authorities in the Statement.
(iii) The judge shall not require appellant or appellee to file a brief, memorandum of law, or response as part of or in conjunction with the Statement.
(iv) The Statement should not be redundant or provide lengthy explanations as to any error. Where non-redundant, non-frivolous issues are set forth in an appropriately concise manner, the number of errors raised will not alone be grounds for finding waiver.
(v) Each error identified in the Statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary issue contained therein which was raised in the trial court; this provision does not in any way limit the obligation of a criminal appellant to delineate clearly the scope of claimed constitutional errors on appeal.Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(i)-(vii) (emphasis added.)
(vi) If the appellant in a civil case cannot readily discern the basis for the judge's decision, the appellant shall preface the Statement with an explanation as to why the Statement has identified the errors in only general terms. In such a case, the generality of the Statement will not be grounds for finding waiver.
(vii) Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.
We agree with the trial court that Banks' statement does not comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and, hence, the claims raised therein are waived. In his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, Banks does not cite any alleged error or ruling by the trial court which he seeks to challenge. Moreover, as the trial court noted, Banks never alleged that the BAA violated his constitutional rights or committed an error of law, nor did he allege that the BAA's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, Banks merely repeats the argument he made to the BAA that the construction and roadwork around the post office constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying the dismissal of his parking ticket.
We note that, even if his claims were not waived, Banks' admission before the BAA that he was parked in a "stopping prohibited" zone at the time he was issued a ticket on October 5, 2012, constitutes substantial evidence in support of the BAA's decision. The ongoing construction and roadwork in the area which severely limited the number of available, legal parking spots does not negate the fact that Banks was illegally parked.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is affirmed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2014, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, dated January 23, 2014, is hereby affirmed.
/s/_________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge