Com. v. Schmanek, D.
1296 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 27, 2017Background
- On July 7, 2014 police stopped Dennis Schmanek for driving the wrong way on a one‑way street; officer observed signs of intoxication and learned he was driving without the owner’s permission.
- Schmanek was arrested and charged with DUI, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle; he also received a summary traffic citation for driving the wrong way.
- On September 8, 2014 the Philadelphia Municipal Court Traffic Division disposed of the summary traffic citation by finding Schmanek not guilty.
- Schmanek moved to dismiss the remaining criminal charges under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (compulsory joinder), arguing the acquittal barred subsequent prosecution arising from the same criminal episode.
- The trial court denied the motion; on appeal the Superior Court considered whether the fourth Fithian prong (same judicial district) was met given Philadelphia’s traffic court structure.
- Applying the court’s en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Perfetto, the Superior Court held that Philadelphia’s traffic court has exclusive jurisdiction over Title 75 summary offenses and that § 110 does not bar subsequent prosecution in common pleas for the higher offenses; the order denying dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 110’s compulsory joinder bars prosecution of felony/misdemeanor charges after acquittal on a summary traffic offense arising from same episode | Commonwealth: § 110 does not bar prosecution because Beatty and related precedent permit separate prosecution after a summary adjudication | Schmanek: Acquittal in municipal traffic court (same judicial district) requires compulsory joinder and bars further prosecution under § 110 | Denied dismissal: in Philadelphia (a judicial district with an exclusive traffic court), summary Title 75 offenses may be disposed in traffic court without triggering § 110 joinder for higher offenses; prosecution may proceed in common pleas |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Barber, 940 A.2d 369 (Pa. Super. 2007) (interlocutory appeal of § 110 denial acceptable; prior case law discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for § 110 is de novo)
- Commonwealth v. George, 38 A.3d 893 (Pa. Super. 2012) (purposes of compulsory joinder: avoid successive prosecutions and promote finality)
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa. 2008) (four‑part test for § 110; and definition of "judicial district")
- Commonwealth v. Geyer, 687 A.2d 815 (Pa. 1996) (interpretation of pre‑amendment § 110 language and Beatty’s basis)
- Commonwealth v. Beatty, 455 A.2d 1194 (Pa. 1983) (interpreting earlier § 110 language regarding single court jurisdiction)
- Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997) (prior plurality decision discussing jurisdictional reach of § 110)