Background
[J-81A-2025 and J-81B-2025] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT TODD, C.J., DONOHUE, DOUGHERTY, WECHT, MUNDY, BROBSON, McCAFFERY, JJ. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 90 MAP 2024 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 373 MDA : 2023 dated March 19, 2024 v. : Reversing and Remanding the : Order of the Bradford County Court : of Common Pleas, Criminal SCOTT LEE SUTTON, : Division, at No. CP-08-CR-0000613- : 2022 dated February 8, 2023 Appellant : : ARGUED: October 8, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 104 MAP 2024 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 249 MDA : 2023 entered on April 22, 2024, v. : Reversing and Remanding the : Order of the Bradford County Court : of Common Pleas, Criminal COREY MICHAEL STROPE, : Division, at No. CP-08-CR-0000536- : 2022, entered on January 12, 2023 Appellant : : ARGUED: October 8, 2025 OPINION JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: July 21, 2026 These cases involve the Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeals from orders disposing of pretrial petitions for writs of habeas corpus (“habeas petitions”), which granted relief by quashing all charges brought against Scott L. Strope (“Strope”) (collectively, “Appellants”).
Background 2 In February 2022, Detectives from the Bradford County Drug Taskforce launched a series of controlled buys 3 in a large-scale sting operation known as “Operation Jet Sweep.” The Detectives relied on CIs to approach and purchase drugs from certain individuals, including Appellants. No law enforcement officers witnessed an exchange of drugs for money in either incident. Appellants are raising the same challenge to the Commonwealth’s reliance on law enforcement hearsay testimony to establish identity. Sutton In August 2022, Sutton was arrested and charged with two counts of delivery of controlled substances. 4 At his October 14, 2022 preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth offered the testimony of a detective who was a member of the Bradford County Drug Taskforce. Memorandum Opinion, 2/8/2023, at 1-2. The CI was not made available for testimony at the preliminary hearing. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, Sutton’s defense counsel moved to dismiss the charges on the basis that the Commonwealth had relied entirely on inadmissible hearsay to establish its prima facie case in identifying Sutton as the drug dealer in the two controlled buys. The magisterial district judge denied the motion, concluding that the Commonwealth had presented prima facie evidence as to each element of the crimes charged. Accordingly, he bound over all charges for trial. 2 Because we are not resolving this case on the merits of the Appellants’ claims, any factual information pertinent to those claims will be limited.
The Court’s Holding
Conclusion The orders from which the Commonwealth appealed were not final orders within the meaning of Pa.R.A.P. 341, and thus the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S. § 742. Without jurisdiction to hear the appeals, its orders are void ab initio. Accordingly, the Superior Court’s orders are vacated and these appeals are quashed. [J-81A-2025 and J-81B-2025] – 31 Chief Justice Todd and Justices Dougherty, Wecht, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion. Justice Brobson files a concurring opinion. Justice Mundy files a dissenting opinion. [J-81A-2025 and J-81B-2025] – 32 [J-81A-2025 and J-81B-2025] [MO: Donohue, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 90 MAP 2024 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 373 MDA : 2023 dated March 19, 2024 v. : Reversing and Remanding the : Order of the Bradford County : Court of Common Pleas, Criminal SCOTT LEE SUTTON, : Division, at No. CP-08-CR- : 0000613-2022 dated February 8, Appellant : 2023. : : ARGUED: October 8, 2025 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 104 MAP 2024 : Appellee : Appeal from the Order of the : Superior Court at No. 249 MDA : 2023 entered on April 22, 2024, v. : Reversing and Remanding the : Order of the Bradford County : Court of Common Pleas, Criminal COREY MICHAEL STROPE, : Division, at No.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- Conclusion The orders from which the Commonwealth appealed were not final orders within the meaning of Pa.R.A.P. 341, and thus the Superior Court did not have appellate jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S. § 742.
- Without jurisdiction to hear the appeals, its orders are void ab initio.
- Accordingly, the Superior Court’s orders are vacated and these appeals are quashed. [J-81A-2025 and J-81B-2025] – 31 Chief Justice Todd and Justices Dougherty, Wecht, Brobson and McCaffery join the opinion.
Why It Matters
Court issues a substantive appellate ruling Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.