COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Carl W. GAMARINO

Superior Court of Pennsylvania1982-04-30No. No. 1625

299 Pa. Super. 144445 A.2d 189

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court vacated the trial court's order and remanded the case for the trial court to enter an explicit verdict of either guilty or not guilty. If the verdict is not guilty, the court shall discharge the defendant; if guilty, post-trial motions may be filed in accordance with applicable rules.

The Commonwealth appealed from a trial court's decision in a summary offense case, but the appellate court could not address the merits because the trial court issued an improper order. The trial court's order stated that the appeal was sustained and the charge dismissed, but Pennsylvania law requires that judgments in summary conviction appeals must be entered as either 'guilty' or 'not guilty.' Although the trial court's decision implicitly suggested the Commonwealth's case was insufficient, the court never explicitly found the defendant not guilty, which is necessary before a dismissal can properly occur.

The appellate court found that the trial court failed to fulfill its duty in a trial de novo by not making an explicit factual finding and entering an appropriate verdict based on the evidence and law. The court emphasized that only after such a finding can the parties exercise post-trial and appellate rights. The appellate court also noted that the trial court improperly reserved judgment on the defendant's pretrial motion challenging the complaint and summons, when such motions must be determined before trial begins.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Proper form of judgment in summary offense appeals
Requirement for explicit guilty or not guilty verdict in trial de novo proceedings
Timing of pretrial motion determinations
Prerequisites for post-trial and appellate rights

Procedural posture

The Commonwealth appealed from a trial court's order following a trial de novo in a summary offense case where the trial court dismissed the charge.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Commonwealth has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas following a trial de novo of a summary offense. Because the order is improper, we cannot reach the merits of the Commonwealth’s contentions. Accordingly, we must vacate the order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The order appealed states, inter alia, that “the appeal on the merits is sustained, the charge is dismissed, and [appellee is] discharged.” “As we have held repeatedly, on an appeal from the judgment ... in summary conviction proceedings, the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas should be either ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty;’ a judgment affirming the justice of the peace, dismissing the appeal, or sustaining the appeal is not sufficient and will be reversed.” Commonwealth v. Carter, 230 Pa.Superior Ct. 401, 402-403, 326 A.2d 530, 531 (1974). Accord, Commonwealth v. Wenyon, 230 Pa.Superior Ct. 342, 343, 326 A.2d 633, 634 (1974); Commonwealth v. Alton, 209 Pa.Superior Ct. 168, 169, 224 A.2d 792, 793 (1966); Commonwealth v. Young, 184 Pa.Superior Ct. 658, 659, 135 A.2d 774, 775 (1957); Commonwealth v. Miller, 173 Pa.Superior Ct. 168, 170, 96 A.2d 153, 154 (1953); County of Allegheny v. Liss, 60 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 100, 102, 430 A.2d 1033, 1034 (1981). Although the lower court implicitly found the Commonwealth’s case to be deficient in a material respect, “[n]either the order nor the complimenting opinion found [appellee] ‘not guilty’ of the alleged offenseQ” Id., 60 Pa.Cmwlth. at 101, 430 A.2d at 1034. Cf. Commonwealth v. Wenyon, supra (finding of guilt implicit); Commonwealth v. Carter, supra (same). “It is the duty of the court to try the case de novo, to hear the evidence and arguments of counsel, to find the facts and thereupon to enter such judgment as would be warranted under the law and evidence.” Commonwealth v. Miller, supra, 73 Pa.Super.Ct. at 170, 96 A.2d at 154. Only after such a finding may the parties properly exercise their post-trial and appellate rights. See Commonwealth v. Koch, 288 Pa.Superior Ct. 290, 431 A.2d 1052 (1981) (holding Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123 applicable to trials of summary cases). Accordingly, we must vacate the order of the court below and remit the record for the entry of an appropriate verdict. If the verdict be not guilty, the court shall order appellee discharged. However, if the verdict be guilty, appellee shall be allowed to file post-trial motions in accordance with rule 1123 and Commonwealth v. Koch, supra. Either party aggrieved by the lower court’s ultimate decision may appeal as allowed by law.

Order vacated and case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Because of our disposition of this case, we do not express any view upon the propriety of the lower court’s post-trial ruling upon appellee’s pretrial motion challenging the underlying complaint and summons. We do note, however, that the lower court should not have reserved judgment upon the motion. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 310 (“Unless otherwise provided in these rules, all pretrial motions shall be determined before trial.”).