Com. v. Hall, F.
1669 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- In May 2014 Hall was arrested in Philadelphia and charged with multiple DUI counts, reckless endangering (REAP), disorderly conduct, and summary traffic offenses; he was convicted in Municipal Court of one DUI and two traffic offenses.
- Hall appealed his DUI conviction for a de novo trial in the Court of Common Pleas and moved to dismiss additional charges under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (the compulsory joinder rule), arguing the earlier conviction arose from the same criminal episode.
- The trial court denied Hall’s § 110 motion after a hearing but did not place findings of fact or a frivolousness determination on the record as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B).
- Hall timely appealed; the Superior Court initially reversed, then the matter was heard en banc.
- The en banc Superior Court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the trial court failed to make the Rule 587(B) findings required to permit an immediate collateral appeal of a compulsory-joinder (double jeopardy–type) dismissal motion.
- The case was remanded to the Court of Common Pleas with instructions to enter the required findings and determine whether the motion was frivolous, so appellate jurisdiction may be assessed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (compulsory joinder) was required because prior municipal convictions arose from the same criminal episode | Hall: prior municipal convictions and the new charges stem from the same criminal episode, so prosecution must have joined them in one proceeding | Commonwealth: trial court implicitly denied dismissal; jurisdictional posture contested (no findings made) | Not decided on the merits. Superior Court remanded because the trial court failed to make Rule 587(B) findings required for interlocutory appeal |
| Whether the Superior Court has jurisdiction to hear an immediate appeal from denial of a compulsory-joinder motion | Hall: denial is appealable as collateral order if motion not frivolous | Commonwealth: appealability depends on trial court’s findings under Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) | Superior Court held it lacked jurisdiction where trial court did not state factual findings or rule on frivolousness; remand ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Perfetto v. Commonwealth, 169 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2017) (§ 110 codifies joinder rule requiring single proceeding for charges from same episode)
- Campana v. Commonwealth, 314 A.2d 854 (Pa. 1974) (Double Jeopardy/joinder principles requiring joinder of known offenses from same episode)
- Brady v. Commonwealth, 508 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1986) (denial of non-frivolous double jeopardy motion may be immediately appealable as collateral order)
- Bracalielly v. Commonwealth, 658 A.2d 755 (Pa. 1995) (interlocutory appealability of claims based on § 110 analyzed with double jeopardy principles)
- Taylor v. Commonwealth, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate courts may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)