Commonwealth v. VanBuskirk

449 A.2d 621, 303 Pa. Super. 148, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4859
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedAugust 6, 1982
Docket710
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 449 A.2d 621 (Commonwealth v. VanBuskirk) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Commonwealth v. VanBuskirk, 449 A.2d 621, 303 Pa. Super. 148, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4859 (Pa. 1982).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The instant appeal is from an adjudication of delinquency by the Juvenile Division of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County. For the reasons that follow, we quash the appeal. 1

This court has jurisdiction over “all appeals from final orders of the courts of common pleas.” Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, § 2, 42 Pa.C.S. § 742 (effective June 27, 1978) (emphasis added). “In determining what constitutes a final order we . . . look to ‘a practical rather than technical construction’ of an order.” Pugar v. Greco, 483 Pa. 68, 73, 394 A.2d 542, 545 (1978) (citation omitted). “A final order is one which .. . ends the litigation, or alternatively disposes of the entire case. Piltzer v. Independence Federal Savings and Loan Association, 456 Pa. 402, 404, 319 A.2d 677, 678 (1974).” Pugar v. Greco, 483 Pa. at 73, 394 A.2d at 544-45. On the other hand, “an order is interlocutory and not final unless it effectively puts the litigant ‘out of court.’ ” Giannini v. Foy, 279 Pa. Superior Ct. at 556, 421 A.2d at 339 (citations omitted).

Instantly, appellant has appealed from the order, finding and adjudication of delinquency entered on March 6, 1980. The adjudicatory order is as follows:

*150 ADJUDICATION
AND NOW, this 6th day of March, 1980, a full hearing in the case at bar having been concluded on March 4,1980, we enter the following:
FINDING
The evidence introduced by the Commonwealth and the alleged delinquent is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that William Van Buskirk’s conduct amounted to “a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in his situation.” Accordingly, we make a finding of delinquency based on homicide by vehicle. See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Theresa Barone, Superior Court of Pennsylvania, January 25, 1980, as yet unreported.[ 2 ]
ADJUDICATION OF DELINQUENCY
Further, we find that William Van Buskirk is in need of treatment, supervision and rehabilitation and enter an adjudication of delinquency. Disposition is postponed until completion of a social investigation. Pending disposition, he may remain in the custody of his parents.

Adjudication, March 6, 1980 (emphasis added).

The Juvenile Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, § 2, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 630 et seq., effective June 27, 1978, contemplates a two step process: First, an alleged delinquent must be found to be either delinquent or not delinquent; and second, if an adjudication of delinquency is entered, a disposition must follow. 3 In the case sub judice, *151 this process was not followed, and appellant’s appeal was taken from the adjudicatory order, prior to any disposition. “Until the [dispositional] hearing had been held and a final *152 disposition made, the litigation was not ended, and [the appropriate form of treatment, supervision and rehabilitation] had not been determined. [The] finding of [delinquency], therefore, was interlocutory. In the Interest of C. A. M., 264 Pa. Superior Ct. 300, 303, 399 A.2d 786, 787 (1979). See, e.g., In the Interest of K. B., 276 Pa. Superior Ct. 380, *153 384 n.1, 419 A.2d 508, 510 n.1 (1980). See also In the Interest of McDonough, 287 Pa. Superior Ct. 326, 333-34, 430 A.2d 308, 312-13 (1981). Since the appeal thereof is not rendered appealable by statute or rule, the appeal is not properly before us.

Accordingly, the appeal from the order of the court of common pleas is quashed as interlocutory.

1

. Neither party has challenged the jurisdiction of this court to resolve the questions raised in this appeal. It is axiomatic, however, that neither silence nor agreement of the parties will confer jurisdiction where it otherwise would not exist. Giannini v. Foy, 279 Pa. Superi- or Ct. 553, 556, 421 A.2d 338, 339 (1980). Accordingly, we address the issue of the appealability of the adjudication of delinquency sua sponte. MacKanick v. Rubin, 244 Pa. Superior Ct. 467, 473, 368 A.2d 815, 818 (1976).

2

. Commonwealth v. Barone, 276 Pa. Superior Ct. 282, 419 A.2d 457 (1980).

3

. The Juvenile Act contains the following provisions governing the adjudicatory stage of a delinquency proceeding:

(a) General rule.—After hearing the evidence on the petition the court shall make and file its findings as to whether the child is a dependent child, or if the petition alleges that the child is delinquent, whether the acts ascribed to the child were committed by him. If the court finds that the child is not a dependent child or *151 that the allegations of delinquency have not been established it shall dismiss the petition and order the child discharged from any detention or other restriction theretofore ordered in the proceeding.
(b) Finding of delinquency.—If the court finds on proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the child committed the acts by reason of which he is alleged to be delinquent it shall enter such finding on the record and it shall then proceed immediately or at a postponed hearing, which shall occur not later than 20 days after adjudication if the child is in detention, to hear evidence as to whether the child is in need of treatment, supervision or rehabilitation and to make and file its findings thereon. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, evidence of the commission of acts which constitute a felony shall be sufficient to sustain a finding that the child is in need of treatment, supervision or rehabilitation.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Borrero
692 A.2d 158 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1997)
Beizer v. Graduate Hospital Inc.
33 Pa. D. & C.4th 494 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1996)
In the Interest of K.B.
639 A.2d 798 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)
Key Automotive Equipment Specialists, Inc. v. Abernethy
636 A.2d 1126 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)
In the Interest of R.M.R.
530 A.2d 1381 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)
Marzullo v. Stop-N-Go Food Stores of Pittsburgh, Inc.
527 A.2d 550 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
449 A.2d 621, 303 Pa. Super. 148, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-vanbuskirk-pa-1982.