Commonwealth v. Nuzzo

284 A.3d 1243

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Marc W. NUZZO, Appellant

No. 726 WDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted: February 22, 2022

Filed: October 18, 2022

James P. Miller, Erie, for appellant.

Stephanie L. Vettenburg-Shaffer, District Attorney, Smethport, for Commonwealth, appellant.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., SULLIVAN, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.^*

OPINION BY OLSON, J.:

Appellant, Marc W. Nuzzo, appeals from the May 20, 2021 order denying his request to seal an amended petition seeking an order directing an evaluation of his competency to stand trial.¹ In addition, the challenged order designated Appellant's competency petition as a public document, subject to disclosure except for certain communications related to Appellant's prior medical treatment and diagnosis.² We vacate the May 20, 2021 order and remand this case for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

The record demonstrates that on March 28, 2019, Appellant was charged with aggravated assault by vehicle (3 counts), homicide by vehicle (1 count), involuntary manslaughter (1 count), and recklessly endangering another person (6 counts).³ Appellant's criminal charges stemmed from his involvement in an automobile accident where it was alleged that, in an attempt to pass another vehicle, Appellant crossed the double yellow lines appearing on the roadway and struck a vehicle, traveling in the oncoming, opposite lane of travel and in which three victims were riding. See Affidavit of Probable Cause, 5/28/19, at 2. Two victims sustained serious bodily injuries, while a third victim ultimately died from injuries sustained in the collision. Id. at 1-2.

Pertinent to the instant appeal, during the course of the criminal proceedings, counsel for Appellant filed a motion on March 19, 2021, requesting the trial court continue a status conference on the ground Appellant had recently been hospitalized and was unable to participate in the proceedings. On March 29, 2021, the trial court granted Appellant's motion for a continuance and further stated,

The limited medical information provided to the [trial] court regarding [Appellant's] hospitalization will be sealed and forwarded to the clerk of courts in [the Court of Common Pleas of] McKean County with the express condition that the sealed document is not public and is not to be accessed without an express order of the [trial] court. Parties having knowledge of the [content of the sealed documents shall not divulge that information] except to note that [Appellant] is hospitalized and unable to proceed at this time.

Trial Court Order, 3/29/21 (continuing the status conference to April 21, 2021).

On April 20, 2021, in anticipation of requesting another continuance of the scheduled status conference, Appellant's counsel moved to file, under seal, a second motion for continuance and medical documentation in support thereof. Appellant's Motion to File Motion to Continue Under Seal, 4/20/21 (stating that, Appellant's medical condition precluded him from participating in the scheduled status conference). The Commonwealth filed a response in opposition to Appellant's request to seal the record concerning his filings. Within its submission, the Commonwealth asked the trial court to issue an order specifically designating what medical information was not to be disclosed. Commonwealth's Motion to Oppose Sealing of Record, 4/20/21. That same day, the trial court granted Appellant's motion to file a continuance motion under seal and ordered, inter alia , that the continuance motion and the supporting medical documentation would not be open to public inspection. Trial Court Order, 4/20/21.

On April 21, 2021, the trial court entertained argument on Appellant's motion for a continuance and the Commonwealth's opposition to the same. Although the trial court order entered at the conclusion of that hearing was filed under seal, and its precise contents are unknown to this Court, the record reflects that the trial court directed Appellant to file a motion seeking a competency evaluation, if one were contemplated. Both Appellant and the Commonwealth were directed to file legal memoranda addressing the trial court's authority to seal the record if Appellant subsequently filed a motion seeking a competency evaluation. See Commonwealth's Memorandum of Law, 5/6/21, at 1; see also Appellant's Memorandum of Law, 5/7/21.

On May 7, 2021, Appellant's counsel filed a competency petition pursuant to Section 7402(c) of the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. §§ 7101 - 7503.⁴ Counsel asserted that Appellant "was incompetent to stand trial or otherwise proceed with the case at this time[.]"⁵ Appellant also requested that the trial court seal his competency petition. See Trial Court Memorandum Opinion, 5/20/21, at 1 (stating, Appellant's counsel "requests the [trial c]ourt seal [the competency petition] and presumably any results of the [hearing on the motion]"). On May 20, 2021, the trial court denied Appellant's request to seal the competency petition, stating, "[t]he amended petition for [a competency evaluation] of [Appellant] will be filed as a public document, subject to [disclosure except for communications by the psychiatrists and licensed professional counselors who have evaluated Appellant]." Trial Court Order, 5/20/21.⁶

On June 21, 2021, Appellant appealed from the May 20, 2021 order "in so far as the second sentence thereof finds that a [competency petition] is a public record as well as the order at issue." That same day, Appellant filed a request to amend the May 20, 2021 order, pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1311(b), to certify the interlocutory order as appealable by permission pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b).⁷ On June 28, 2021, the trial court denied Appellant's request to amend the interlocutory order, stating the trial "court believes this appeal to be totally frivolous and constitutes a further unnecessary delay in this very old criminal case which is replete with defense delays and unnecessary appeals."⁸ Trial Court Order, 6/28/21. This appeal followed.

Appellant raises the following issues for our review:

[1.] Is an order denying a request to seal [a] petition for [an] order directing [a competency evaluation], filed pursuant to [ ] 50 P.S. § 7402 [ ], and all other documents related thereto[,] a collateral order under Pa.R.A.P. 313 ?

[2.] Does Section 7111 [ ] of the Mental Health Procedures Act [ ] require the [trial] court [to] seal the petition [seeking an] order directing [a competency evaluation], filed pursuant to [ ] 50 P.S. § 7402 [ ] in this case, and all other documents related thereto, such that the same remain confidential and not a public record?

Appellant's Brief at 4.⁹

As Appellant recognizes by way of his first issue, we must first determine whether the May 20, 2021 interlocutory order is appealable because appealability implicates our jurisdiction. Calabretta v. Guidi Homes, Inc. , 241 A.3d 436, 440 (Pa. Super. 2020). Jurisdiction is purely a question of law, and, as such, our standard of review is de novo , and our scope of review is plenary. Id . at 440-441.

Because jurisdictional grounds for this appeal were not immediately apparent, this Court, in an August 20, 2021 per curiam order, directed Appellant to show cause why the May 20, 2021 order satisfied the collateral order doctrine, as discussed more fully infra . Per Curiam Order, 8/20/21. Appellant filed a response to the rule to show cause order with this Court on August 31, 2021. In a September 29, 2021 per curiam order, this Court discharged its rule to show cause order and advised Appellant that the issue may be revisited by the merits panel. Per Curiam Order, 9/29/21.

Generally, a party may only appeal from a final order, which is defined by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 341 as an order that, inter alia , "disposes of all claims and of all parties[.]" Pa.R.A.P. 341(b)(1). One exception to this general rule, however, is commonly known as the collateral order doctrine and is set forth in Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313. Pursuant to Rule 313, "an appeal may be taken as of right from a collateral order of a trial court[.]" Pa.R.A.P. 313(a). Rule 313(b) defines a collateral order as "an order separable from and collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost." Pa.R.A.P. 313(b).

It is well-established that, consistent with the definition that appears in Rule 313, there are three elements that define a collateral order – separability, importance, and irreparable loss if review is postponed. A.A. v. Glicken , 237 A.3d 1165, 1169 (Pa. Super. 2020), citing Ben v. Schwartz , 556 Pa. 475, 729 A.2d 547 (1999). "[A]n order is ‘separable’ from the main cause of action if it is capable of review without consideration of the main issue in the case." Commonwealth v. Shearer , 584 Pa. 134, 882 A.2d 462, 468 (2005). When assessing "whether an issue is sufficiently important to support application of the collateral order doctrine, [an appellate] court should weigh the interests implicated in the case against the costs of piecemeal litigation." Glicken , 237 A.3d at 1169 (citation, original brackets, and original quotation marks omitted). The "importance requirement is satisfied when the claim implicates rights deeply rooted in public policy going beyond the particular litigation at hand and does not merely affect the individuals involved in the case at hand." Shearer , 882 A.2d at 469 (citation and original quotation marks omitted). "An issue is important if the interests that would potentially go unprotected without immediate appellate review are significant relative to the efficiency interests sought to be advanced by adherence to the final [order] rule." Glicken , 237 A.3d at 1169 (original brackets and original quotation marks omitted). Finally, irreparable loss...