Com. v. Williams, R.
837 WDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 8, 2016Background
- On Oct. 12, 2013, Williams allegedly brandished a small shotgun inside Dowling’s Tavern, fled, and was later arrested and charged with firearms and related offenses while on state parole.
- A parole detainer led to a Gagnon II parole revocation proceeding in which Williams says the hearing examiner found probable cause for an alcohol-related condition but "no probable cause" for a condition prohibiting entering establishments that sell alcohol. Williams asserted this finding related to the tavern incident.
- Williams’ criminal jury for the persons-not-to-possess-firearms charge deadlocked in Feb. 2015 and a mistrial was declared; remaining charges were severed.
- On Apr. 1, 2015 Williams moved to dismiss the criminal charges on collateral estoppel grounds, arguing the parole hearing’s "no probable cause" finding precluded re‑litigation of the dispositive fact (that he did not enter/brandish the firearm). The trial court denied the motion after a May 8 hearing, without opinion.
- The trial court later found Williams’ collateral‑estoppel claim frivolous and therefore not appealable as of right; Williams did not file a Rule 1573 petition for review. The Superior Court quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parole hearing finding collaterally estops Commonwealth from prosecuting criminal charges | Williams: parole hearing’s “no probable cause” finding conclusively shows he did not commit the tavern firearm act, so prosecution is barred | Commonwealth/Trial Court: parole-hearing finding is not shown to relate to these charges and was made by a non-judicial examiner in a different forum | Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction because trial court deemed the claim frivolous and Williams failed to file a Rule 1573 petition; on the merits the trial court’s rationale (parole hearing findings not binding) is sound |
| Whether denial of pretrial dismissal was immediately appealable as collateral order | Williams: order denying dismissal should be appealable as a collateral order under Pa.R.Crim.P. 587 | Trial Court: ruled Williams’ collateral-estoppel claim frivolous, making the order not appealable as of right; appellate review required Rule 1573 petition | Court: because trial court labeled claim frivolous and Williams did not pursue Rule 1573 review, Superior Court lacks jurisdiction and quashes appeal |
| Whether a Gagnon II hearing finding by a hearing examiner can preclude later criminal trial | Williams: hearing finding binding on Commonwealth | Trial Court/Commonwealth: revocation/hearing examiner determinations do not bind a subsequent criminal factfinder; such findings are informal and not final judgments | Trial court’s legal view (following Cosgrove) that parole/violation findings by non-judicial examiners do not bar criminal prosecution was adopted as correct by the Superior Court |
| Whether appellant waived issues by failing to file Rule 1925(b) statement | Williams: counsel later sought nunc pro tunc relief claiming nonreceipt | Trial Court: denied nunc pro tunc; initially deemed issues waived; Superior Court found counsel’s failure was ineffective per se and remanded for trial court opinion | Superior Court remedied counsel error by remanding for trial court opinion, but ultimately quashed appeal on jurisdictional grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Cosgrove, 629 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Super. 1993) (probation/revocation hearing findings by courts or examiners do not bind a later criminal trial factfinder)
- Commonwealth v. States, 891 A.2d 737 (Pa. Super. 2005) (discussing collateral estoppel as part of double jeopardy doctrine)
- Commonwealth v. Blystone, 119 A.3d 306 (Pa. 2015) (appellate courts may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
- Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017 (Pa. Super. 2015) (procedures when trial court labels a double-jeopardy motion frivolous and appellate jurisdiction issues)
- Commonwealth v. Lee, 416 A.2d 503 (Pa. 1980) (defendant may choose to proceed to trial and still raise pretrial double jeopardy claim on appeal)