Com. v. Vellner, M.
Com. v. Vellner, M. No. 944 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Michael D. Vellner was charged with two counts of aggravated indecent assault and one count of indecent assault based on an alleged April 4, 2015 incident.
- A jury trial was set for March 17, 2016; at trial the Commonwealth played a videotaped police interview that revealed Vellner was on probation, prompting defense counsel to request a mistrial.
- The trial court granted a mistrial; defense counsel then filed a pretrial motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds.
- A hearing on the double jeopardy motion was held May 6, 2016; after argument the court said it would rule within about a week and did not place findings of fact or conclusions of law on the record.
- The court denied the motion by order dated May 10, 2016 but did not state on the record whether the motion was frivolous or advise Vellner of appellate options as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B).
- The Superior Court vacated the May 10, 2016 order and remanded for compliance with Rule 587(B), because the trial court failed to make the required contemporaneous findings and frivolousness determination that control appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a pretrial double jeopardy motion is immediately appealable as a collateral order | Commonwealth: trial court properly denied the motion and no immediate appellate relief should be available (implied) | Vellner: mistrial caused by Commonwealth bars reprosecution under double jeopardy; denial should be immediately appealable | The Superior Court concluded it cannot decide appealability because trial court failed to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B); vacated and remanded for required on-the-record findings |
| Whether the trial court complied with Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) when denying the motion | Commonwealth: record sufficient for denial (implied) | Vellner: trial court failed to make required on‑record findings and frivolousness determination | Trial court did not comply with Rule 587(B)(3)–(6); remand required for contemporaneous findings and advisals |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (interpreting Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) and requiring on‑record findings, frivolousness determination, and advisals)
- Commonwealth v. Brady, 508 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1986) (pretrial double jeopardy denials may be treated as collateral orders when motions are not frivolous)