Com. v. Slatoff, T.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Slatoff, T.

DecidedJune 11, 2019

Docket1792 EDA 2018

StatusUnpublished

This text of Com. v. Slatoff, T. (Com. v. Slatoff, T.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Com. v. Slatoff, T., (Pa. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S77045-18

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : TYLER CHRISTIAN SLATOFF : No. 1792 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered June 6, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-15-CR-0003295-2017

BEFORE: OTT, J., DUBOW, J., and STRASSBURGER*, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED JUNE 11, 2019

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the order entered

June 6, 2018, in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, directing the

Chester County District Attorney’s Office to admit Tyler Christian Slatoff into

the ARD Program, conditional upon participation in weekly drug and alcohol

counseling sessions rather than his participation in the “Drug Court Program.”

In this timely appeal, the Commonwealth argues the trial court overstepped

its authority in issuing the order. After a thorough review of the submissions

by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm based on the

sound reasoning of the trial court.

The parties are well versed in the factual history of this matter;

accordingly, we need not provide a detailed recitation of the facts. We relate

that on April 27, 2017, Slatoff was subjected to a traffic stop that resulted in

the determination he had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.075%

____________________________________ * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S77045-18

(slightly under the 0.08% driving limit), as well as traces of Xanax and

metabolites of marijuana in his blood. Slatoff was subsequently charged with

driving under the influence, failing to drive within a single lane, careless

driving, accidents involving damage to unattended vehicle or property,

careless driving, and underage drinking.1

Slatoff had a doctor’s prescription for Xanax. Slatoff suffered, and

presumably still suffers, from an astounding array of symptoms and

diagnoses, including: “racing thoughts, anxiety, panic attacks, depression,

difficulty keeping still, headaches, memory loss, night flashbacks, alcohol

abuse and marijuana use … post-concussive disorder (having suffered 15

diagnosed concussions), post-traumatic stress disorder, Postural Orthostatic

Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS)[2] (which can predispose a person to

concussions), tinnitus, optometric disturbance, and suspected Chronic

Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE).” Trial Court Opinion, 7/10/2018, at 3.

Slatoff applied for and was accepted into Chester County’s ARD3

program. The certified record contains no document indicating Slatoff was

____________________________________________

175 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802(a)(1), (d)(1)(i), (d)(2), (d)(3), (e); 3309(1); 3714(a); 3745(a); and 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308(a), respectively.

2Simply for informational purposes, POTS, according to WebMD, is a racing heart upon standing up from sitting or upon sitting up from lying down. The heart races in an effort to pump blood from the lower body to the brain.

3 Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition.

-2- J-S77045-18

accepted into ARD, however, the Commonwealth asserts that his acceptance

contained the “added condition that he must complete Drug Court.” See

Commonwealth’s Response to [Slatoff’s] Motion to Compel ARD, 4/16/2018,

¶ 3.

Slatoff applied for Drug Court and was required to undergo an evaluation

conducted by the Mirmont Outpatient Center, specifically by Kate Neidler

MSW, LSW.4 Without consultation to Slatoff’s medical records or with his

treating physicians, Ms. Neidler conditioned Slatoff’s acceptance into the drug

program upon a 24-hour drug detox of Slatoff’s prescribed medications.

Following his doctor’s recommendations, Slatoff refused the Drug Court

Program, but sought admission to the ARD program. The District Attorney’s

Office refused the request. Slatoff filed a motion to compel his acceptance

into ARD. The trial court held a hearing on the motion, ordering the parties

to submit expert reports. The Commonwealth relied upon Ms. Neidler’s

evaluation, while Slatoff submitted a letter from his treating counselor, J. Todd

Barlow, MS, LPC, CAADC,5 and his primary care physician, Dr. Jon E. Brndjar,

DO, FACOI, FACP.6 Based upon the unrebutted medical testimony presented

by Slatoff, indicating a high probability of serious and possibly permanent

4 Master of Social Work, Licensed Social Worker, respectively.

5 Master of Science, Licensed Professional Counselor, Certified Advanced Alcohol and Drug Counselor, respectively.

6 Doctor of Osteopathy, Fellow of the American College of Osteopathic Internists, Fellow of the American College of Physicians, respectively.

-3- J-S77045-18

harm to Slatoff should his long standing treatment program be suddenly

terminated, the trial court determined that the additional condition of drug

court was not reasonably “relat[ed] to the protection of society or to the

likelihood of [Slatoff’s] successful rehabilitation.” Commonwealth v. Ebert,

535 A.2d 178, 180 (Pa. Super. 1987). As such, the trial court determined the

Commonwealth abused its discretion in denying Slatoff admission into ARD

and ordered him admitted to ARD with weekly drug testing, the results of

which are to be transmitted to the Chester County Adult Probation

Department.

The Commonwealth now appeals, raising three issues, all of which

essentially claim the trial court substituted its own judgment in rejecting the

drug court condition for admission to ARD.7 We disagree.

Our standard of review is as follows.

In Commonwealth v. Gano, 781 A.2d 1276, 1279 (Pa. Super. 2001), citing our prior decision in Commonwealth v. Gano, 756 A.2d 680, 682 (Pa. Super. 2000), this Court stated the standard of review to be employed when considering the trial court’s denial of admission into ARD is an abuse of discretion standard. It

7 The Commonwealth’s three claims are:

1) The trial court erred in characterizing the District Attorney’s actions in denying Slatoff admission in ARD; 2) the trial court improperly substituted its own judgment for the District Attorney’s in deciding whether Slatoff was an appropriate candidate for ARD; and 3) the trial court erred in determining the District Attorney abused his discretion in refusing Slatoff admission into the ARD program.

We have edited these claims to a more concise form.

-4- J-S77045-18

logically follows that when reviewing an order directing admission into an ARD program, the standard remains the same.

The term ‘discretion’ imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion, within the framework of the law, and is not exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion must be exercised on the foundation of reason, as opposed to prejudice, personal motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused when the course pursued represents not merely an error of judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will. Commonwealth v. Widmer, 560 Pa. 308,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI