Opinion
No. 2115 C.D. 2008.
Submitted: April 24, 2009.
Filed: July 20, 2009.
BEFORE: SMITH-RIBNER, Judge; LEAVITT, Judge; McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge.
OPINION NOT REPORTED
James Freeman appeals, pro se, an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) denying his petition to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Because Freeman's complaint failed to set forth a valid cause of action, we will affirm the trial court's order.
On July 20, 2002, Freeman was arrested for criminal homicide. He was arraigned before Deputy Coroner Robert Keys. A coroner's inquest was held on September 10, 2002, before Deputy Coroner Timothy Uhrich. Deputy Coroner Uhrich held Freeman for trial on one count of criminal homicide. Freeman pled guilty in the court of common pleas to voluntary manslaughter on January 30, 2003. He was sentenced to 6 to 12 years in prison and a consecutive term of 8 years of probation.
On September 8, 2008, Freeman filed a civil complaint, captioned as an "Action in Quo Warranto," against Deputy Coroners Uhrich and Keys. Freeman alleged that his conviction was void because the deputy coroners lacked the legal authority to act as committing magistrates. Based upon this alleged procedural defect, Freeman alleged numerous violations of his constitutional rights and sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as $400 million in compensatory and punitive damages. Freeman also petitioned the trial court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis under PA. R.C.P. NO. 240. The trial court denied the petition and dismissed Freeman's complaint as frivolous. The present appeal followed.
On appeal, Freeman argues that the trial court erred by rejecting his claim as frivolous because deputy coroners lack statutory or constitutional authority to act as committing magistrates. Freeman also argues, for the first time on appeal, that Deputy Coroners Uhrich and Keys could not act as magistrates because they never took the oath or affirmation required for public office. We begin with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 240(j), which states:
Our scope of review of a trial court's denial of an in forma pauperis application is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Bennett v. Beard, 919 A.2d 365, 366 n. 1 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007).
Also before the Court is Freeman's Application for Relief filed May 1, 2009, asking that we consider the following cases: Stroup v. Kapleau, 455 Pa. 171, 313 A.2d 237 (1973); Commonwealth ex rel. Kirkpatrick v. Denworth, 145 Pa. 172, 22 A. 820 (1891); Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97 (1934); and Gwinn v. Kane, 339 A.2d 838 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1975). We grant Freeman's motion but note that none of these cases change the outcome of Freeman's appeal.
If, simultaneous with the commencement of an action or proceeding or the taking of an appeal, a party has filed a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court prior to acting upon the petition may dismiss the action, proceeding or appeal if the allegation of poverty is untrue or if it is satisfied that the action, proceeding or appeal is frivolous.
PA. R.C.P. NO. 240(j) (emphasis added). The official Note to Rule 240(j) provides that "[a] frivolous action or proceeding has been defined as one that `lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.'" (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1990)). This Court has explained that an action is frivolous under Rule 240(j) "if, on its face, it does not set forth a valid cause of action." Bennett v. Beard, 919 A.2d 365, 367 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007).
Applying the foregoing standards, we agree with the trial court that Freeman's action was frivolous for two reasons. First, it is well settled that "[d]efects and irregularities in the information, warrant and proceedings before the magistrate are cured by pleading to the indictment and going to trial." Com. ex rel. Lockhart v. Myers, 165 A.2d 400, 403-404 (Pa.Super. 1960), cert. denied, Lockhart v. Myers, 368 U.S. 860 (1961). Thus, when Freeman pled guilty to the charge of voluntary manslaughter, he waived any challenge he may have had to the propriety of the proceedings before the committing magistrate, including the authority of a deputy coroner to act in that capacity.
Second, our Superior Court has soundly rejected Freeman's argument that a deputy coroner may not act as an issuing authority or committing magistrate. In Commonwealth v. Smouse, 594 A.2d 666 (Pa.Super. 1991), the appellant argued that the criminal complaint lodged against him was void ab initio because it had been signed by a deputy coroner, who appellant asserted could not act as an issuing authority. The Superior Court held:
This issue is frivolous. It long has been clear that in cases involving either violent or suspicious deaths, a coroner or his properly authorized designee may act as an issuing authority. . . . Such power was extant at common law, . . . and contrary to appellant's assertions, survived both the enactment and the amendment of the Judicial Code. . . .
Id. at 668 (citations omitted). Likewise, in cases of violent or suspicious death, a coroner or his properly authorized designee may conduct an inquest in lieu of a preliminary hearing and act as a committing magistrate. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 933 A.2d 1035, 1041 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 715; 951 A.2d 1163 (2008). In light of this clear authority, the trial court committed no error in finding that Freeman's cause of action was invalid.
Freeman also argues that Deputy Coroners Uhrich and Keys could not act as magistrates because they never took the oath or affirmation required for public office. Freeman raises this issue for the first time on appeal and, as such, it is waived. PA. R.A.P. 302(a) ("Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."). In any event, this issue is another alleged defect or irregularity that Freeman had to raise before he entered a guilty plea. Lockhart.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order denying Freeman's petition to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing his complaint.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of July, 2009, Appellant's Application for Relief filed May 1, 2009, is GRANTED. The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the above-captioned matter, dated October 6, 2008, is AFFIRMED.