Com. v. Tinsley, T., Com. v. Tinsley, T. No. 431 EDA 2016

On Sept. 3, 2013, police stopped Thomas Tinsley for running a stop sign and discovered a loaded firearm; he was cited for the traffic violation and arrested on weapons charges.
Some firearm-related charges were dismissed for lack of evidence; Tinsley pled not guilty in traffic court and was convicted of disregarding a stop sign on Nov. 5, 2013.
Tinsley moved to suppress and the motion was denied on Apr. 23, 2014. He later filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 on Nov. 24, 2015.
A hearing on the double jeopardy motion occurred Jan. 20, 2016; the trial court denied the motion but did not place findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a specific frivolousness finding on the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
Tinsley appealed the denial as a collateral order. The Superior Court held that because the trial court failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B)(3)–(6), the matter must be remanded for the trial court to make on-the-record findings (including a frivolousness determination) and issue a supplemental Rule 1925(a) opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by denying Tinsley’s double jeopardy motion (18 Pa.C.S. § 110) relying on pre-2002 precedent and without making on-the-record findings under Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B)	Tinsley argued the court relied on outdated § 110 interpretations and that joinder/ double jeopardy principles barred prosecution; he sought dismissal	Commonwealth argued the statutory factors for § 110 were not met and opposed dismissal; trial court denied motion on that basis	Superior Court did not decide the merits; it remanded because the trial court failed to comply with Rule 587(B)(3)–(6) by not stating findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a contemporaneous frivolousness finding on the record

Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (interpreting Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) requirements for on-the-record findings and frivolousness determination)
Commonwealth v. Brady, 508 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1986) (double jeopardy pretrial dismissal orders may be collateral and appealable)