Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Arlt v. United States
Citations: 562 A.2d 633; 1989 D.C. App. LEXIS 147; 1989 WL 83470Docket: No. 87-60
Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals; July 25, 1989; District Of Columbia; State Supreme Court
Appellant Arlt was charged with taking property without right under D.C. Code 22-3816 and was found guilty by a hearing commissioner. He was sentenced to time served but did not seek prior review from a Superior Court judge, as required by D.C. Code 11-1732(k). This court, lacking jurisdiction due to the absence of this required review, ordered Arlt to show cause for the appeal's jurisdiction. Instead of complying, Arlt filed a motion to hold the appeal in abeyance to seek Superior Court review. The court concluded it could not grant this request because it had no jurisdiction over the appeal, emphasizing that under the 1986 amendment to the statute, review by a Superior Court judge is a necessary prerequisite for appellate review. The court noted that there is no evidence that a Superior Court judge reviewed the commissioner's findings or judgments, as all proceedings were conducted before the commissioner without any judicial oversight. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction. The court addresses its jurisdiction regarding appeals from orders or judgments issued by Superior Court hearing commissioners, referencing a consistent legal principle established in Eck and codified in D.C.Code 11-1732(k). This statute mandates that any appeals from a hearing commissioner's ruling must first be reviewed by the Superior Court, either upon a party's motion or sua sponte by a judge. Only after such a review can an appeal be made to this court, and that appeal must arise from the Superior Court judge's final order, not directly from the commissioner’s ruling. The appellant in this case failed to seek the required review in the Superior Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The excerpt notes that procedural rules regarding the review timeline have changed since April 1988, now requiring motions for review to be filed within 10 days, with judges having 30 days to conduct reviews sua sponte. Additionally, the court reiterates that a commissioner's ruling is not considered final until approved by a trial judge, referencing past cases that established this requirement. The details regarding the appellant’s arraignment and the procedural history of the case are also noted, but the court emphasizes that the focus remains on the jurisdictional principles and procedural compliance. On the trial date, Commissioner Gaye transferred the case to Commissioner Treanor for trial. Since April 1988, any party seeking to review a commissioner’s order in the Superior Court must file a motion within ten days, as per Rule 117(f)(1), while a judge has thirty days to act on their own accord under Rule 117(f)(2). These timelines also apply to civil cases. Even if jurisdiction were established, the commissioner’s judgment would still be upheld on the merits, as the evidence sufficiently supported the appellant's conviction for unlawfully taking property. The appellant's motivation for taking a District of Columbia flag was deemed irrelevant. The court concurred with the hearing commissioner that the appellant's claim of free expression did not exempt him from prosecution for taking property that did not belong to him, referencing several legal precedents.