Opinion
J-S72038-18 No. 773 MDA 2018
02-04-2019
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID J. ZUKOWSKI, Appellant.
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered, April 4, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Susquehanna County, Criminal Division at No(s): CP-58-CR-0000456-2017. BEFORE: BOWES, J., SHOGAN, J., and KUNSELMAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:
The Reverend David J. Zukowski appeals pro se from a trial court order dismissing all criminal charges against him. The Commonwealth charged Rev. Zukowski with several counts of making unsworn, false statements to authorities and false reports. Because the trial judge dismissed all of the counts against him at a pre-trial hearing, he has already won this case, and there is no further relief we can give him. Thus, we will quash his appeal.
The order also dismissed all charges against Rev. Zukowski's wife, Laura Zukowski. Mrs. Zukowski has not appealed.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. Because we dispose of this matter on purely procedural grounds, we need only discuss them briefly.
This case arose when Rev. Zukowski and his wife, Laura Zukowski, filed private, criminal complaints with the District Attorney of Susquehanna County. The Zukowskis alleged crimes of theft, deception, and corruption against a string of local government officials. After detectives investigated, the Commonwealth deemed the Zurkowskis' accusations meritless and refused to press charges against the government officials.
However, the Commonwealth then filed charges against the Zukowskis. It alleged that their private, criminal complaints amounted to unsworn, false statements to authorities and false reports to law enforcement.
Rev. Zukowski and his wife filed motions for recusal of the trial judge and the entire Office of the District Attorney of Susquehanna County. The trial court denied those motions.
They also filed motions to dismiss the charges with prejudice, because the Commonwealth could not make its prima facie case. The trial court dismissed all charges against Rev. and Mrs. Zukowski as follows:
Now, to Wit, this 4th day of April, 2018, the matter having come before the court pursuit to a Habeas Corpus Petition, the court being apprised that the outstanding tax monies allegedly due on this particular matter have been paid in full by Laura Zukowski, and the Commonwealth having no objection to a dismissal, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 586, and the [Zukowskis] having no objection to said dismissal, it is hereby Ordered that the criminal matter filed in this matter is dismissed under Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 586.Trial Court Order, 4/4/18.
The trial court neither ordered Rev. Zukowski to file a 1925(b) Statement nor issued an opinion in this matter.
Rev. Zukowski raises twelve issues on appeal. See Zukowski's Brief at 3-5. However, many of them were not relevant to the Commonwealth's case against him. Several others raise allegations of misconduct against the former district attorney who pressed charges against him and the trial judge who dismissed them. Because such claims must be raised in separate proceedings before other departments of the Unified Judicial System (such as the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's Disciplinary Board or its Judicial Conduct Board), they are not allegations that this Court may decide. Thus, we express no opinion on the claims of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct that Rev. Zukowski has alleged in his appellate brief.
Rev. Zukowski has reported his allegations to the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board, and they were not relevant to the matter at bar. See N.T., 4/4/18, at 5.
More importantly, Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 501 confers standing to appeal only upon a "party who is aggrieved by an appealable order . . . ." See also United Parcel Service , Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission , 830 A.2d 941, 948 (Pa. 2003) (stating that, "as the prevailing party, UPS had no standing to appeal."). The order at bar dismissed all charges against Rev. Zukowski and essentially granted his February 6, 2018 Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Thus, he won.
Because Rev. Zukowski was the prevailing party below, he was not "aggrieved by an appealable order." Pa.R.A.P. 501. Therefore, he has no standing to appeal. Accordingly, we quash.
Appeal quashed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 02/04/2019