Com. v. McCrae, R.
1373 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 27, 2017Background
- Police stopped Robert McCrae for heavily tinted windows in Philadelphia and alleged signs of intoxication; during a search after arrest they found a loaded semi-automatic firearm in the vehicle and narcotics on his person.
- McCrae received a summary conviction in absentia in Philadelphia Municipal Court Traffic Division for Improper Sunscreen (75 Pa.C.S. § 4524(e)).
- The Commonwealth also charged McCrae in Court of Common Pleas with a felony (18 Pa.C.S. § 6106), a misdemeanor firearms offense (18 Pa.C.S. § 6108), DUI (75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d)), and possession (35 P.S. § 780-113(16)).
- McCrae moved to dismiss the felony and misdemeanor charges under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (compulsory joinder), arguing the Commonwealth was required to join all charges arising from the same criminal episode in the same judicial district.
- The trial court denied the motion; McCrae took an interlocutory appeal. The Superior Court (en banc) affirmed, relying on the rule that Philadelphia’s separate traffic court can adjudicate Title 75 summary offenses independently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 110 required dismissal because a summary traffic conviction was already obtained arising from the same criminal episode | McCrae: § 110(1)(ii) requires consolidation of all charges arising from the same criminal episode in the same judicial district; Municipal Court and Common Pleas are in the First Judicial District so separate prosecution violated § 110 | Commonwealth: Philadelphia has a separate traffic court with exclusive jurisdiction over summary traffic offenses; disposing the summary offense in traffic court does not trigger § 110 dismissal of other charges | Affirmed: § 110 dismissal not required because Philadelphia Municipal Court Traffic Division may dispose of Title 75 summary offenses separately; subsequent prosecutions for higher offenses may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (standard of review for compulsory joinder is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. DeLong, 879 A.2d 234 (Pa. Super. 2005) (defendant entitled to interlocutory appeal from denial of non-frivolous double jeopardy motion)
- Commonwealth v. M.D.P., 831 A.2d 714 (Pa. Super. 2003) (§ 110 challenges treated similarly to double jeopardy interlocutory appeals)
- Commonwealth v. Williams, 125 A.3d 425 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate court may affirm on any legal basis supported by the record)