In the Int. of: D.W., a Minor

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

In the Int. of: D.W., a Minor

DecidedMarch 21, 2017

DocketIn the Int. of: D.W., a Minor No. 1593 MDA 2016

StatusUnpublished

This text of In the Int. of: D.W., a Minor (In the Int. of: D.W., a Minor) 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

In the Int. of: D.W., a Minor, (Pa. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

J-S14008-17

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

IN THE INTEREST OF: D.F.W., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : : : : APPEAL OF: D.F.W., A MINOR : No. 1593 MDA 2016

Appeal from the Dispositional Order September 12, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-JV-0000115-2016

BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., SHOGAN, J., and STRASSBURGER, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 21, 2017

Appellant, D.F.W., a minor, appeals from the dispositional order

entered in the Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, following his

adjudication of delinquency on the charge of defiant trespass.1 We affirm.

In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly set forth the relevant

facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to

restate them.

Appellant raises three issues for our review:

WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE INFRACTION, IF ANY, WAS DE MINIMIS AS [APPELLANT’S] ACTIONS WERE WITHIN CUSTOMARY LICENSE AND NO

____________________________________________

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503(b)(1)(i).

_____________________________

*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-S14008-17

HARM WAS SUFFERED BY OR THREATENED TO ANY PARTY[?]

WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE PREMISES WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND HE REASONABLY BELIEVED THAT A TENANT HAD INVITED HIM UPON THE PROPERTY[?]

WHETHER APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO THE OVERTURNING OF THE DECISION OF THE [TRIAL] COURT BECAUSE THE TENANTS OF THE PROPERTY WHERE APPELLANT WAS CHARGED WITH TRESPASS WERE ENTITLED TO A RIGHT OF QUIET ENJOYMENT, WHICH CANNOT BE HONORED IF THEIR LANDLORD CAN BAR CERTAIN GUESTS WITHOUT PROCESS OR LIMITATION[?]

(Appellant’s Brief at 4).2

After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the

applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable James P.

Goodman, we conclude Appellant’s remaining issues merit no relief. The

trial court opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the

questions presented. (See Trial Court Opinion, filed November 10, 2016 at

3-6) (finding: (1) evidence showed Appellant had notice on several

occasions that he was not licensed or privileged to be on Housing Authority ____________________________________________

2 To the extent Appellant’s issue #3 complains on appeal about a tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment, specifically a tenant’s right to invite Appellant on to the property as a social guest, Appellant is not the proper party to make that argument. See generally In re T.J., 559 Pa. 118, 124, 739 A.2d 478, 481 (1999) (stating: “In determining whether a party has standing, a court is concerned only with the question of who is entitled to make a legal challenge and not the merits of that challenge”; “the purpose of the ‘standing’ requirement is to insure that a legal challenge is by a proper party”). Therefore, we give Appellant’s issue #3 no further attention.

-2- J-S14008-17

property; Appellant admitted he knew he was not permitted on Housing

Authority property; Corporal Brian Reno credibly testified he had given

Appellant notice on prior occasions that Appellant was not permitted on

Housing Authority property, and when Corporal Reno confronted Appellant

on date of incident, Appellant fled; Appellant violated trespassing statute

when he entered Housing Authority property; Appellant’s actions did not

constitute de minimis violation; and (2) Jody Dunnigan, Pottsville Housing

Authority Deputy Executive Director, testified that property at issue belongs

to Housing Authority; Housing Authority maintains no-trespass list to protect

tenants’ peaceful enjoyment of their property; Housing Authority and police

can enforce no-trespass list; tenants had no right to allow Appellant to go

anywhere on Housing Authority property; in any event, Appellant was near

playground on property and was not in tenant’s residence). Accordingly, we

affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

Dispositional order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 3/21/2017

-3- Circulated 02/22/2017 12:00 PM

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SCHUYLKILL COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUVENILE DIVISION

IN THE INTEREST OF: No. JV-115-2016

D.W., A JUVENILE

Eric Lieberman, Esquire -for the Commonwealth Karen Domalakes, Esquire -for the Juvenile

OPINION PURSURANT TO PA R.A.P. 1925

GOODMAN, J.

The Appellant, D.W. has filed an appeal to this Court's Order dated September

12, 2016 adjudicating the Appellant delinquent on the charges of Defiant Trespass. On

or about September 14, 2016, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior

Court which was served upon this Court. By Order of Court dated September 20, 2016

this Court directed the Appellant file a Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on

Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925. On September 27, 2016, the Appellant filed a

Concise Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal.

The Appellant raises the following three issues on appeal:

~;· °;A. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the N Co~on Pleas decision because the infractions, if any was de minimis as Q. his aitions were within customary license and no harm was suffered by or thre~ened to any party. 0 -I ..,_J

e:; 3 B. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the ,;: Corgnon Pleas decision because the premises was open to the public and i3 he.f§asonably believed that a tenant had invited him upon the property. -· [. V')

C. Appellant is entitled to the overturning of the decision of the Common Pleas decision because the tenants of the property where Appellant was charged with trespass were entitled to a right of quiet enjoyment, which cannot be honored if their landlord can bar certain guests-wi:thot1t-prores ·. The Commonwealth presented testimony from Jody Dunnigan, the Deputy

Executive Director of the Pottsville Housing Authority. Mr. Dunnigan testified that the

Housing Authority assists income eligible people with housing assistance and the

Housing Authority owns a number of properties in the City of Pottsville including the

John O'Hara Complex. Mr. Dunnigan testified that the Housing Authority, as directed by

HUD, maintains a no trespass list in order to protect the tenants' peaceful enjoyment of

their property. The Appellant was on the no trespass list. A copy of the notice that was

given to the Appellant which stated that the Appellant is hereby banned from all

Pottsville Housing Authority properties including but not limited to the John O'Hara

property was admitted into evidence.

The Commonwealth also called Corporal Brian Reno of the Pottsville Police

Department. Corporal Reno testified that the Pottsville Police are provided every other

week with an updated trespass notice list from the Pottsville Housing Authority of

individuals who are banned from Housing Authority properties. Corporal Reno testified

that he had prior knowledge that the Appellant was banned from all Housing Authority

properties. Corporal Reno testified that he verbally advised the Appellant on numerous

occasions that he was not to be on Housing Authority property. The Corporal gave the

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