For the definition of ‘‘disposition,’’ see Rule 120 and its Comment.
When properly raised before or during a hearing, a claim will be deemed preserved for appeal and the party need not file a post-dispositional motion solely for the purpose of preservation. To raise a claim that a ruling on the offense or an adjudication of delinquency was against the weight of the evidence, see Rule 415. Nothing in this rule is intended to address Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) or the possible waiver of appellate issues for non-compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure once an appeal is filed. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived).
See Rule 622 and In re Brandon Smith, 573 A.2d 1077 (Pa. Super. 1990), for motions concerning ineffective assistance of counsel.
TIMING
Supplemental post-dispositional motions may be filed, but the time requirements of paragraph (B)(1) are to be followed.
For the date of entry of an order, see Pa.R.A.P. 108(a)(1) (‘‘[T]he day of entry shall be the day the clerk of the court. . . mails or delivers copies of the order to the parties. . . .’’).
BRIEFS; TRANSCRIPTS; ARGUMENT
Under paragraph (C)(1), the judge should determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether briefs, memoranda of law, or arguments are required for a fair resolution of the post-dispositional motion. The judge may order that a concise summary of the relevant law and facts is sufficient. Any local rule requiring briefs or oral argument in every case is inconsistent with this rule. See Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(d)(2).
Under paragraph (C)(3), the judge, in consultation with the attorneys, should determine what, if any, portions of the notes of testimony are to be transcribed so that the post-dispositional motion can be resolved. The judge should then set clear deadlines for the court reporter to ensure timely resolution of the motion. Nothing in this rule precludes the judge from ordering the transcription of the notes of testimony or portions of it immediately after the conclusion of the adjudicatory, dispositional, or revocation hearing or the entry of an admission.
For the recording and transcribing of court proceedings generally, see Pa.R.J.A. Nos. 4001—4016. The requirements for the record and the writing of an opinion for an appeal are set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
There is no requirement that oral argument be held for every post-dispositional motion. When oral argument is held concerning the post-dispositional motion, the juvenile need not be present.
DISPOSITION
Under paragraph (D), the judge may not vacate the order imposing the disposition pending decision on the post-dispositional motion. However, the judge may vacate or change the disposition once there has been a decision on the motion if the motion was decided within the time limitations of this rule.
Paragraph (D)(2) permits one 30-day extension of the 30-day time limitation upon motion of a party and good cause shown. In most cases, an extension would be requested and granted when new counsel has entered the case. Only a party may request such an extension. The judge may not, sua sponte, extend the time for the decision: a congested court calendar or other judicial delay does not constitute ‘‘good cause’’ under this rule.
The possibility of an extension is not intended to suggest that thirty days are required for a decision in most cases. The time limitations for resolution of the post-dispositional motion are the outer limits. Uncomplicated issues, such as a modification of the disposition or an admission challenge, ordinarily should be decided in a much shorter time period.
If the judge decides the motion within the time limitations of this rule, the judge may grant reconsideration on the post-dispositional motion pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 or Pa.R.A.P. 1701(b)(3), but the judge may not vacate the disposition pending reconsideration. The reconsideration period may not be used to extend the timing requirements set forth in paragraph (D) for decision of the post-dispositional motion. The time limitations imposed by paragraphs (D)(1) and (D)(2) continue to run from the date the post-dispositional motion was originally filed. The judge’s reconsideration, therefore, is to be resolved within the 30-day decision period of paragraph (D)(1) or the 30-day extension period of paragraph (D)(2), whichever applies. If a decision on the reconsideration is not reached within the appropriate period, the post-dispositional motion, including any issues raised for reconsideration, will be denied pursuant to paragraph (D)(3).
Under paragraph (D)(1), on the date when the court decides the motion, or the date when the motion is denied by operation of law pursuant to paragraph (D)(3), the judgment becomes final for the purposes of appeal. See 42 Pa.C.S. § § 102, 722, 742, 5105(a), Pa.R.A.P. 341, and Commonwealth v. Bolden, 373 A.2d 90 (Pa. 1977).
An order entered by the clerk of courts under paragraph (D)(3) constitutes a ministerial order and is not subject to reconsideration or modification pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5505 or Pa.R.A.P. 1701.
If the motion is denied by operation of law, paragraph (D)(3) requires that the clerk of courts enter an order denying the motion on behalf of the court and immediately notify the attorneys, or the juvenile, if unrepresented, that the motion has been denied. This notice is intended to protect the party’s right to appeal. The clerk of courts also is to comply with the filing, service, and docket entry requirements of Rule 167.
CONTENTS OF ORDER
Paragraph (E) protects a party’s right to appeal by requiring that the judge’s order denying the motion, the clerk of courts’ order denying the motion by operation of law, or the order entered memorializing a party’s withdrawal of a post-dispositional motion, contain a written notice of the party’s appellate rights. This requirement ensures adequate notice to the party, which is important given the potential time lapse between the notice provided at the dispositional hearing and the resolution of the post-dispositional motion. See also Commonwealth v. Miller, 715 A.2d 1203 (Pa. Super. 1998), concerning the contents of the order memorializing the withdrawal of a post-dispositional motion.
When a party withdraws a post-dispositional motion in open court and on the record, the judge should enter an oral order memorializing the withdrawal. The judge is to give the party notice of the information required by paragraph (E). See Commonwealth v. Miller, supra.
AFTER-DISCOVERED EVIDENCE
Pursuant to paragraph (F), a motion for a new adjudicatory hearing on the grounds of after-discovered evidence may be filed with the court. If the motion is filed, it is to be in writing after such discovery is made if there is no appeal pending. See Rule 622 for filing a motion for nunc pro tunc relief. If an appeal is pending, the judge may grant the motion only upon remand of the case.
If there is after-discovered evidence concerning the dispositional hearing, a motion for a change in the dispositional order may be filed with the court. The motion may allege a need for a change in the dispositional order pursuant to Rule 610(c). If this motion is made, notice and an opportunity to be heard is to be given to the parties and the victim. See Pa.R.J.C.P. 610(c); 42 Pa.C.S. § 6353.
MISCELLANEOUS
Under paragraph (A)(1), the grounds for the post-dispositional motion should be stated with specificity. Motions alleging insufficient evidence, for example, are to specify the reasons why the evidence was insufficient, and motions alleging that the court’s findings were against the weight of the evidence are to specify why the findings were against the weight of the evidence.
Because the post-dispositional motion is optional, the failure to raise a claim with specificity in the post-dispositional motion will not constitute a waiver of the issue on appeal if the claim was properly raised. See paragraph (A)(2).
Claims properly preserved at the dispositional hearing need not, but may, be raised again in a motion to modify disposition in order to preserve them for appeal. In deciding whether to move to modify the disposition, counsel should carefully consider whether the record created at the dispositional hearing is adequate for appellate review of the issues, or the issues may be waived. See Commonwealth v. Jarvis, 663 A.2d 790 (Pa. Super. 1995). As a general rule, the motion to modify the disposition under paragraph (A)(1) gives the dispositional judge the earliest opportunity to modify the disposition. This procedure does not affect the court’s inherent powers to correct an illegal disposition or obvious and patent mistakes in its orders any time before an appeal or upon remand by the appellate court. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Holmes, 933 A.2d 57 (Pa. 2007) (court has inherent power to correct patent and obvious mistakes despite the absence of traditional jurisdiction); Commonwealth v. Jones, 554 A.2d 50 (Pa. 1989) (court can, sua sponte, correct an illegal sentence even after the defendant has begun probation or placement); Commonwealth v. Cole, 263 A.2d 339 (Pa. 1970) (inherent power of the court to correct obvious and patent mistakes).
Once a disposition has been modified or reimposed pursuant to a motion to modify the disposition under paragraph (A)(1), a party wishing to challenge the decision on the motion does not have to file an additional motion to modify the disposition in order to preserve an issue for appeal if the issue was properly preserved when the disposition was modified or reimposed. See paragraph (B)(2).
Rule 520 adopted May 17, 2007, effective August 20, 2007. Amended July 28, 2009, effective immediately. Amended January 11, 2010, effective March 1, 2010. Renumbered Rule 620 on February 23, 2012, effective April 1, 2012. Amended May 23, 2018, effective October 1, 2018.
Final Report explaining the provisions of Rule 520 published with the Court’s Order at 37 Pa.B. 2506 (June 2, 2007).
Final Report explaining the amendment to Rule 520 published with the Court’s Order at 39 Pa.B. 4743 (August 8, 2009).
Final Report explaining the renumbering of Rule 520 to 620 published with the Court’s Order at 42 Pa.B. 1214 (March 10, 2012).
Final Report explaining the amendments to Rule 620 published with the Court’s Order at 48 Pa.B. 3407 (June 9, 2018).
