Opinion
J-S54005-16 No. 1094 WDA 2015 No. 1095 WDA 2015
09-09-2016
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee v. KERRY ALLAN LAVERDE, ANDRE MICHAEL NESTOR, Appellants
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered June 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-63-CR-0002433-2009 CP-63-CR-0002437-2009 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY BENDER, P.J.E.:
Appellants, Kerry Allan LaVerde and Andre Michael Nestor, each appeal from the trial court's June 23, 2015 identical orders denying their "Motion for Release of Property," in which Appellants sought return of $429,000 that was jointly owned by them, and which had been seized following their arrests for theft-related offenses committed against Meadows Racetrack and Casino. That money was later forfeited by LaVerde on January 3, 2011, in order to satisfy a sentence of restitution imposed after he pled guilty to three counts of receiving stolen property. After careful review, we affirm.
This Court sua sponte consolidated LaVerde's and Nestor's appeals by per curiam order dated September 18, 2015.
Briefly, Appellants argue on appeal that the trial court should have granted their "Motion for Release of Property," or at least conducted a hearing on that motion, because LaVerde could not have "permissibly agree[d] to forfeit" money that was jointly owned by Nestor. They also contend that LaVerde's sentence of restitution "is now and always was illegal[,]" and "Nestor's [d]ue [p]rocess rights were violated when he was not ever provided notice and an opportunity to be heard and present his innocent owner defense to the forfeiture of the monies." Appellants' Brief at 9.
We have reviewed the certified records, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law. We have also examined the well-reasoned opinion by the Honorable John F. DiSalle of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County. Therein, Judge DiSalle concisely sets forth the rather complex procedural history underlying this appeal. He then deftly addresses the issues raised by Appellants herein, discussing several, equally reasonable bases for denying Appellants' "Motion for Release of Property." See Trial Court Opinion (TCO), 2/5/16, at 5-9 (concluding that the motion was "untimely as to all issues presented, there [were] no genuine issues of fact, and the issues are moot"). We find especially compelling Judge DiSalle's conclusion that Appellants' motion is untimely. See id. at 5-6, 7-9. Notably, Appellants offer no argument in their brief to this Court to challenge Judge DiSalle's determination in this regard. Accordingly, Appellants' have failed to demonstrate any error in Judge DiSalle's decision denying their "Motion for Release of Property." Therefore, we adopt Judge DiSalle's opinion as our own and affirm the court's June 23, 2015 order for the reasons set forth therein.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 9/9/2016
Image materials not available for display.