Appeal from the Order July 2, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-02-MD-0002233-2012, 02-MD-0002234-2012, 02-MD-0002235-2012
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., LAZARUS, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
Satish Jindel ("Jindel") appeals, pro se, from the orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County affirming the Allegheny County District Attorney's ("DA") decision to disapprove Jindel's three private criminal complaints. After our review, we affirm the trial court's order.
Jindel filed three private criminal complaints, one against Paul J. Leventon, Esquire, one against Meri Iannetti, Esquire, and one against Marsha Jindel. Satish and Marsha Jindel were married in 1994, separated in 2007, and divorced in 2010. Marsha was the plaintiff in the underlying contentious divorce/custody/support actions, and Attorney Iannetti and Attorney Leventon represented Marsha in those matters (collectively, "defendants").
In the private criminal complaints, Jindel alleged the named defendants committed perjury in the family court proceedings. Assistant District Attorney Simquita Bridges reviewed the complaints and found each insufficient to support bringing perjury charges. The DA disapproved the complaints, stating it was not the DA's office policy to pursue criminal complaints lacking in prosecutorial merit.
Jindel filed motions for reconsideration in each case. The Honorable Edward J. Borkowsi determined the DA exercised proper use of its discretion and denied the motions for reconsideration on July 2, 2012. Jindel appealed; he raises ten issues for our review:
1. Did the court abuse its discretion by accepting the DA's refusal to file charges when the DA had failed to investigate the complaints to enable the exercise of discretion?
2. Did the court commit an error of law in applying Rule 506 and in providing legal advice to the DA by asking if denial was a hybrid one, knowing that the complaint was deni[ed] on evidentiary concerns?
3. Did the court abuse its discretion and commit an error of law by accepting the DA citation of Wilson, 879 A.2d 199 [Pa. Super. 2005] since the DA had failed to order investigation of Appellant's prima facie case prior to denying the complaint?
4. Did the court commit an error of law and abuse of discretion in accepting the DA's position that Petitioner had an adequate civil remedy?
5. Did the court abuse its discretion by accepting the DA's discretion to deny the complaints without requiring the DA to reply to Petitioner's response that included numerous documents including complete transcripts?
6. Did the court abuse its discretion when it conveyed its intent to deny the petitions even before the DA had filed its ...