Com. v. Davis, E., 1440 EDA 2015

In March 2014 Philadelphia police pursued Eugene Lamont Davis after observing traffic violations and alleged DUI; Davis allegedly fled, ran red lights, and endangered another vehicle.
Davis was arrested and criminally charged in the Court of Common Pleas with DUI, fleeing and eluding, and recklessly endangering another person; he also received four Municipal Court traffic citations and was found guilty in absentia on those traffic matters.
The traffic prosecutions occurred in the Philadelphia Municipal Court — Traffic Division; the DUI was listed in the Municipal Court General Division and Davis was later bound over for trial in Common Pleas after a preliminary hearing.
In February 2015 Davis moved to dismiss the Common Pleas criminal charges under the compulsory joinder rule, 18 Pa.C.S. § 110(1)(ii), arguing the Municipal Court prosecutions arose from the same criminal episode and the Commonwealth knew of the other charges when it prosecuted the summary offenses.
The trial court denied the motion on April 13, 2015 but did not place findings of fact on the record nor state whether the motion was frivolous as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B).
On appeal, the Superior Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court failed to make the requisite Rule 587(B) findings; the case was remanded for the trial court to enter findings and determine whether the motion was frivolous so collateral-order appealability can be assessed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether compulsory joinder (18 Pa.C.S. § 110) barred prosecution in Common Pleas because Municipal Court prosecuted related summary offenses	Davis: the summary traffic convictions arose from the same criminal episode, the Commonwealth knew of other charges, and prosecutions occurred in same judicial district, so the Common Pleas charges must be dismissed	Commonwealth: the trial court implicitly denied dismissal and proceeded; enforcement of joinder did not require dismissal here (trial court did not make requisite findings)	The Superior Court did not decide the merits; it held it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court failed to make the factual and frivolousness findings required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B), and remanded for those findings

Commonwealth v. Perfetto, 169 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2017) (discussing § 110 as codifying Campana and compulsory-joinder principles)
Commonwealth v. Campana, 314 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1974) (Double jeopardy/compulsory joinder principle requiring known charges from a single episode be tried together)
Commonwealth v. Brady, 508 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1986) (denial of non-frivolous double jeopardy motion may be immediately appealable as a collateral order)
Commonwealth v. Bracalielly, 658 A.2d 755 (Pa. 1995) (section 110 claims share purposes with double jeopardy; interlocutory appealability applied)
Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate jurisdiction questions may be raised sua sponte)