Com. v. Beck, A.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: July 30, 2021
• Docket: 958 EDA 2019
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

J-S18040-21

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : ARTHUR BECK : : Appellant : No. 958 EDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 8, 2019 In the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): MC-51-MD-0000059-2019

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McCAFFERY, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.: FILED JULY 30, 2021

Appellant, Arthur Beck, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed

by the Honorable James Murray Lynn of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia

County, Criminal Division following his conviction of criminal contempt.1 We

remand for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

On March 8, 2019, Appellant appeared before Judge Lynn for a bench

warrant hearing related to his failure to surrender to serve a sentence of 72

hours to 6 months of imprisonment for a driving under the influence (“DUI”)

conviction docketed at MC-51-CR-0007318-2017. Appellant was represented ____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 42 Pa.C.S. § 4132. Appellant’s appeal directly from the Municipal Court is properly before this Court. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 1123(a.1) (“There shall be a right to appeal to the Superior Court of a contempt citation issued by a municipal court judge, but the appeal shall be limited to a review of the record.”). Judge Lynn is a Judge in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County but was sitting by designation in the Municipal Court. J-S18040-21

by the Defender Association of Philadelphia at that hearing. At the conclusion

of the hearing, Judge Lynn resentenced Appellant on his DUI conviction, found

Appellant in contempt of court based upon his failure to surrender, and

imposed a consecutive sentence of 2 months and 29 days to 5 months and 29

days on the contempt conviction. N.T., 3/8/19, at 7-9.

On April 3, 2019, the Defender Association filed a notice of appeal in the

contempt matter, which was docketed at MC-51-MD-0000059-2019. Also in

early April 2019, Brian F. Humble, Esq. entered his appearance in both the

DUI and contempt proceedings. Attorney Humble’s entry of appearance notes

that he is “privately retained” counsel on behalf of Appellant. Appellant filed

a motion for early release on parole in both matters, which Judge Lynn denied

on June 3, 2019.

On June 5, 2019, Attorney Humble filed a motion for reconsideration of

the denial of parole at both dockets. In this motion, Attorney Humble stated

as follows: “At the time [of conviction and sentencing on the contempt

charge] the public defender represented [Appellant]. [] [Appellant], via

counsel, intends to withdraw this appeal, but has been unable to do so due to

the electronic filing shut-down.” Motion for Reconsideration, 6/5/19, at 1 n.1.

In the motion, Attorney Humble also observed that Appellant is “gainfully

employed, as he owns a business specializing in residential and commercial

cleaning.” Id. ¶10.

The Defender Association has exclusively represented Appellant in this

appeal, and Attorney Humble has neither entered an appearance in this Court

-2- J-S18040-21

nor has a praecipe to discontinue this appeal been filed on Appellant’s behalf.

In his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, Judge Lynn stated as follows:

It should be noted that this Notice of Appeal was filed by the Defender Association of Philadelphia on April 3, 2019, two days after a new attorney, Brian Humble, Esq., entered his appearance and filed a Motion for Early Release on Parole which this Court ultimately granted. This Court has had discussions with Mr. Humble and based on those conversations, awaited a withdraw of appeal. Since such notice did not arrive, this [C]ourt submits this opinion.

Trial Court Opinion, 12/4/20, at 2.

This matter is remanded for 30 days for a determination as to

Appellant’s legal representation in this appeal and whether Appellant intends

to pursue this appeal. Additionally, the trial court shall make a determination

as to whether Appellant’s in forma pauperis status has changed and if he is

still eligible for court-appointed counsel. See Pa.R.A.P. 555 (“A party

permitted to proceed in forma pauperis has a continuing obligation to inform

the appellate court of improvement in the financial circumstances of the party.

Counsel for a party shall likewise be under a continuing obligation to inform

the appellate court of such improvement within a reasonable time after

counsel learns of it.”).

The trial court shall transmit to this Court within 30 days from the date

of this order written notice of all findings and actions taken thereon.

Case remanded. Panel jurisdiction retained.

-3- J-S18040-21

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/30/2021

-4-