Opinion
September 12, 1975.
February 18, 1976.
Criminal Law — Practice — Special investigating grand jury — Subpoena — Denial of motion to quash subpoena — Interlocutory order — Failure of lower court to certify appeal — Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act — Appeal quashed.
In this case, the court below denied the appellant's motion to quash subpoenas issued in connection with a special investigating grand jury. The court below did not issue a certification on the appeal as provided for in the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act. It was Held that the matter would not be reviewed on the merits and the appeal was quashed as the order appealed from was interlocutory and the lower court did not issue a certification.
Argued September 12, 1975.
Before WATKINS, P.J., JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT, and SPAETH, JJ.
Appeal, No. 1627, Oct. T., 1975, from order of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Jan. T., 1974, No. 74-00-0430, in case of In Re: January, 1974 Special Investigating Grand Jury. In the Matter of: Grand Jury Subpoenas Nos. 806 and 807 issued to Kenneth Shapiro. Appeal quashed and case remanded.
Proceedings upon applications to quash subpoenas requiring appearance before special investigating grand jury.
Order entered dismissing motions to quash subpoenas, opinion by BULLOCK, JR., J. Witness appealed.
Nicholas J. Nastasi, with him Arthur R. Shuman, Jr., for appellant.
Nancy J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, with her Walter M. Phillips, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a lower court Order denying the appellant's motion to quash subpoenas; although interlocutory, special allowance for appeal was granted by this Court in this case and in Carabello Appeal, January, 1974 Special Investigating Grand Jury, 238 Pa. Super. 479, A.2d (1976). Unlike Carabello, Id., the lower court issued no certification in the instant case, but review was initially granted here because the appellant, inter alia, raised the identical question on which we deemed review appropriate in Carabello, Id. While our decision in Carabello, issued of a date simultaneously herewith, is dispositive of the controlling issue presented in this case, the lack of a lower court certification on this appeal [See Section 501 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, Art. V, § 501, 17 Pa.C.S.A. § 211.501] compels us, for reasons of procedural consistency, to reconsider our decision granting review, and to decline a review of the merits of this appeal. See: Tracey Service Co. Appeals, January, 1974 Special Investigating Grand Jury, (VAN der VOORT, J., not participating), 238 Pa. Super. 476, ___ A.2d ___ (1976).