Opinion
No. 1467 C.D. 2013
05-19-2014
Commonwealth of PA v. Ronald L. Heckman, Appellant
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
Ronald L. Heckman, proceeding pro se, appeals from the "Verdict/Disposition and Sentence in a Summary Appeal" entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County (trial court) on August 7, 2013 (August Verdict) that, based on a July 29, 2013 de novo trial, found Heckman guilty of violating Section 304.7 of the City of Reading (City) Property Maintenance Code (Code) and sentenced him to pay a $300 fine and court costs. On appeal, Heckman argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred by not issuing the August Verdict in open court; not permitting him to complete his cross-examination of the City's witness, a City Code Inspector (Inspector); or allowing him to present testimony and evidence in his own defense.
The City prosecuted Heckman on behalf of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Heckman owns rental property in the City at 101 Walnut Street (the Property). On December 10, 2012, Inspector observed what he considered violations of Sections 304.15 and 305.6 of the Code, which related to the installation of locks on the Property's exterior door and interior doors, respectively. (Property Inspection Report, R.R. at 43.) Inspector gave Heckman seven days to resolve the violations, but Heckman did not do so. (Hr'g Tr. at 12.) On January 10, 2013, Inspector issued Heckman non-traffic citations charging him with violating these Code provisions. (Citation No. P9655877-0 (Section 304.15 of the Code - Exterior Structure); Citation No. P9655878-1 (Section 305.6 of the Code - Interior Structure); Hr'g Tr. at 13.)
Heckman appealed those citations, and a Magisterial District Judge (MDJ) found Heckman guilty of violating Section 305.6 - Interior Structure and "§ 304 §§7" "Exterior Structure," but did not refer to any violation of Section 304.15. (MDJ Non-Traffic Docket No. MJ-23105-NT-0000136-2013; MDJ Non-Traffic Docket No. MJ-23105-NT-0000137-2013.) Although the MDJ indicated that Section 304.7 of the Code related to the Property's Exterior Structure, that section actually relates to "rainwater conductors must be installed," (Summary Appeal Docket, CP-06-SA-0000117-2013), which the City did not charge Heckman with violating. (Hr'g Tr. at 24.) Heckman then filed an appeal to the trial court, which held the de novo trial on July 29, 2013. At the close of the de novo trial, the trial court advised the parties that it was taking the matter under advisement and would issue its decision in "[a]bout a week." (Hr'g Tr. at 36, 41.) The trial court's August Verdict found Heckman guilty of violating Section 304.7 and not guilty of violating Section 305.6 of the Code, but the trial court did not announce these verdicts in open court.
Heckman filed a timely appeal from the August Verdict and the trial court directed him to file a Concise Statement of the Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b) (Statement), Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b). Heckman did so, asserting, inter alia, that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of violating Section 304.7 because he had not been charged with violating that provision of the Code, that the trial court should not have stopped the de novo trial, and that the trial court should have issued the August Verdict on the record and in Heckman's presence, not six days later. (Trial Ct. Op. at 1 n.3 & 4-5; Statement at 2.) Thereafter, the trial court issued an "Amended Verdict/Disposition and Sentence in a Summary Appeal" (Amended Verdict) on October 18, 2013, finding Heckman guilty of violating Section 304.15 of the Code, for which the City had issued Heckman Citation No. P9655877-0 (Citation) on January 10, 2013. In issuing the Amended Verdict, the trial court indicated that it was correcting a clerical error in the August Verdict, which erroneously cited to Section 304.7 of the Code, and that it was clear from the Citation issued by the City and the record from the de novo trial that Heckman was charged with violating Section 304.15, not Section 304.7. (Trial Ct. Op. at 1 n.3; Hr'g Tr. at 24.) The trial court indicated in its opinion that the MDJ erroneously listed Section 304.7 as the relevant section in those proceedings, an error that was repeated in the August Verdict. (Trial Ct. Op. at 1 n.3.) The trial court noted that, under either section, the fine would be $300. (Trial Ct. Op. at 2 n.3.)
On appeal, Heckman argues, inter alia, that the trial court erred in: (1) not announcing the August Verdict finding him guilty in open court; and (2) not allowing Heckman to finish cross-examining the Inspector or present witnesses or evidence in his own defense. The trial court acknowledges that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462(F), Pa. R.Crim.P. 462(F), it should not have rendered its verdict out of court, and this Court should, pursuant to Commonwealth v. Loner, 871 A.2d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), vacate Heckman's verdicts and sentence and remand the matter so that it can enter its verdict in open court. (Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6.) The City asserts that any error the trial court may have committed was harmless and that this Court should either affirm or vacate and remand to allow the trial court to render its verdict in open court. Neither the trial court in its opinion, nor the City in its brief, address Heckman's allegations that he was not permitted to complete his cross-examination of Inspector or to present testimony or evidence in his own defense.
"This Court's review of a trial court's determination on appeal from a summary conviction is limited to whether there has been an error of law or whether competent evidence supports the trial court's findings." Commonwealth v. Nicely, 988 A.2d 799, 803 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Heckman raises nine issues on appeal claiming prejudice and challenging: the trial court finding him guilty of violating any section of the Code because the City did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of doing so; the issuance of the Amended Verdict after Heckman's appeal to this Court had been filed; and the trial court's reference to a letter, allegedly sent by Heckman to the County District Attorney, in its opinion. (Heckman's Br. at 4.) However, because we are vacating this matter and remanding for further proceedings, we will not comment on these issues in this appeal.
The City simply asserts that the trial court credited Inspector's testimony and this determination should not be disturbed on appeal. (City's Br. at 5.)
We first address the trial court not issuing, in open court, its August Verdict finding Heckman guilty and sentencing him to pay a fine of $300 and court costs upon the conclusion of the July 29, 2013 trial. Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462 provides the procedures for appealing a summary case to a court of common pleas for a trial de novo. Pa. R.Crim.P. 462. Rule 462(F) specifically states how a court must issue its verdict and sentence in these appeals, stating, in relevant part, "[t]he verdict and sentence, if any, shall be announced in open court immediately upon the conclusion of the trial." Pa. R.Crim.P. 462(F) (emphasis added). This Court's decision in Loner offers guidance in resolving this matter. In Loner, the trial court did not announce its guilty verdict in open court, and we vacated the trial court's order for, among other reasons, not complying with Rule 462(F). Loner, 871 A.2d at 296. Here, because the trial court concedes that it did not comply with Rule 462(F) we will, as we did in Loner, vacate the trial court's August Verdict and Amended Verdict and remand this matter for further proceedings, the extent of which will be discussed below.
The Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure apply to summary appeals based on violations of a municipality's ordinance. City of Hazleton v. Smith, 625 A.2d 748, 749-50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
We note that had the trial court announced its August Verdict and sentence immediately following the de novo trial, it would have provided Heckman the immediate opportunity to object to the trial court finding him guilty of violating Section 304.7, thereby permitting the trial court to correct what appears to have been an error and relieving it from having to issue the Amended Verdict several months later. Moreover, the trial court acknowledged in its opinion that the errors in the August Verdict "may have misle[]d [Heckman] as to what he would assert in his concise statement" and "may have affected the errors he would be entitled to raise in his concise statement." (Trial Ct. Op. at 5-6.)
Heckman also argues that the trial court violated his constitutional rights because it did not allow him to complete his cross-examination of Inspector and did not permit him to offer his own testimony and other evidence in his defense. Due process requires that "criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense," California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984), and to present defensive evidence, Commonwealth v. Tielsch, 934 A.2d 81, 90 (Pa. Super. 2007). The minimum essentials of a fair trial include a defendant's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses on the defendant's own behalf. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294 (1973). "Few rights are more fundamental than that of an accused to present witnesses in his own defense." Id. at 302.
However, these rights are not absolute; the evidence sought to be presented must be relevant and not excluded by an evidentiary rule. Tielsch, 934 A.2d at 90.
A review of the record reveals that although Heckman did cross-examine Inspector on certain issues, he did not get the opportunity to cross-examine Inspector about Heckman's alleged violation of Section 304.7. (Hr'g Tr. at 24.) Given the City's attorney's statement that "[w]e're not here today, Your Honor, about the roof or drainage," (Hr'g Tr. at 24), and the trial court's admission that Heckman's conviction based on Section 304.7 was made in error, (Trial Ct. Op. at 1 n.3; Amended Verdict), we conclude that limiting Heckman's questions on this topic was harmless error. However, with regard to Heckman's ability to testify, we note that Heckman had the opportunity to cross-examine Inspector and to make an argument to the trial court, but he was never sworn in as a witness and did not offer testimony before the trial court ended the hearing. Notwithstanding Heckman advising the trial court that he had not yet testified, (Hr'g Tr. at 27), the trial court ended the hearing and took the matter under advisement without taking Heckman's testimony. Heckman asserts that permitting the trial court to simply read its verdict in open court would not provide him with the opportunity to "give a defense, give testimony, present evidence and witness[es]." (Heckman's Br. at 15.)
The hearing transcript indicates that the trial court, Heckman, and the Inspector discussed the doors, and Heckman did provide some factual information about the Property, the doors, and the alleged violations of the Code.
Again, Loner offers some guidance. In Loner, we held that because the trial court did not hold a hearing at which the defendants testified, it was necessary to remand the matter for the trial court to hold a de novo trial and make a specific determination of guilt following that trial. Loner, 871 A.2d at 296. Therefore, consistent with Loner, we will remand this matter for the trial court to hold further proceedings to allow Heckman to present testimony and evidence in his own defense.
In Loner, the defendants did not testify at the initial de novo trial because the parties indicated that they had an agreement whereby the defendants would repair the building in question within a specified period of time and, if completed, they would receive a partial remittance of the fine ordered by the MDJ. Loner, 871 A.2d at 294. The trial court then issued an order that stated, inter alia, the defendants "indicat[ed] a wish to plead guilty to the summary violations." Id. When the defendants did not complete the repairs in the agreed upon time period the trial court held a sentencing hearing, at which the defendants did not testify, and imposed the full fine on the defendants. Id. at 295. Defendants appealed to this Court, arguing that there was no adjudication by the trial court finding them guilty of violating the ordinance at issue, and this Court vacated and remanded, noting that "it appear[ed] that the trial court has not filed an order specifically finding [the defendants] guilty." Id. (second alteration added, citation omitted). At the remand hearing, the defendants argued that the initial order merely continued the proceedings to provide the defendants an opportunity to repair the building and mitigate their fine, and that there was no guilty plea in the record. Id. Although the trial court disagreed and found that the defendants did plead guilty, this Court reversed. A review of the record revealed that the defendants did not enter a guilty plea in open court and the trial court did not administer a plea colloquy as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 590(A), (B), Pa. R.Crim.P 590(A), (B), or announce its verdict in open court as required by Rule 462(F). Id. at 296. The trial court attempts to distinguish Loner because it asserts that, here, Heckman was given a full and fair trial. (Trial Ct. Op. at 6.) However, as stated above, Heckman was not provided the opportunity to present evidence and testimony in his own defense. --------
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court's August Verdict and Amended Verdict finding Heckman guilty and sentencing him to pay a fine of $300, and we remand this matter for further proceedings to allow Heckman to present testimony and evidence in his own defense, at the conclusion of which the trial court is directed to enter its verdict and sentence, if any, in open court as required by Rule 462(F).
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge ORDER
NOW, May 19, 2014, the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County's (trial court) verdicts entered on August 7, 2013 and October 18, 2013, finding Ronald L. Heckman (Heckman) guilty and sentencing him to pay a fine of $300 and court costs, are hereby VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings to allow Heckman to present testimony and evidence in his own defense, and for the trial court to enter its verdict and sentence, if any, in open court as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 462(F).
Jurisdiction relinquished.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge