Com. v. Nocero, J.
1154 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 29, 2017Background
- Appellant John T. Nocero appealed an interlocutory order denying his motion to dismiss three misdemeanor charges under the compulsory-joinder statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 110.
- The trial court denied Nocero’s Section 110 motion; Nocero sought appellate review of that denial.
- The Superior Court panel recognized recent authority (Commonwealth v. Diggs) holding that Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) applies to Section 110 motions and sets specific procedural requirements for trial courts when ruling on double-jeopardy-type dismissal motions.
- On review, the Superior Court found the trial court did not comply with Rule 587(B): it failed to (1) place findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record after a hearing, and (2) make a frivolousness determination when denying the motion.
- Because of those procedural omissions, the Superior Court remanded for the trial court to comply with Rule 587(B) and to prepare a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion; the court did not resolve the underlying merits of the Section 110 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying a motion to dismiss charges under the compulsory-joinder statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 110) | Commonwealth: the denial was proper and interlocutory review was not barred — trial court acted appropriately | Nocero: § 110 required dismissal of the misdemeanor charges; denial was erroneous | The Superior Court did not decide the merits; it remanded because the trial court did not follow Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) procedural requirements and directed compliance before further appellate consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (explains trial-court obligations under Pa.R.Crim.P. 587 when ruling on double-jeopardy-type dismissal motions, including findings, frivolousness determination, and advisals)
(Notes: Superior Court relied on Commonwealth v. Diggs in reasoning, but Diggs lacks an official reporter citation in the opinion and is discussed as controlling procedural precedent.)