Commonwealth v. George
38 A.3d 893
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- George was arrested in 2007 for two cocaine delivery charges and for two ounces found at his residence; he pled guilty in 2008 to Possession with Intent to Deliver and was sentenced to 3-6 years.
- In 2007, George gave investigators a statement admitting involvement in a drug distribution ring and naming Brent Rafferty as his source, with details of multiple buyers and locations.
- The Commonwealth later investigated a broader operation; a State Wide Investigating Grand Jury was convened to pursue narcotics trafficking in Lackawanna County.
- In 2010, George was arrested again on two counts of Corrupt Organization and one count of Conspiracy to Deliver Cocaine based on activity prior to the 2007 arrest.
- The trial court granted habeas relief dismissing the 2010 charges as barred by 18 Pa.C.S. § 110; the Commonwealth appealed, arguing the charges were not barred.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the 2010 charges were barred because they arose from the same criminal episode and the prosecutor knew of the current offenses before the first trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 110(1)(ii) bars the current charges as arising from the same episode | Commonwealth: current charges share same conduct/episode as 2007 case. | George: not the same episode; broader scope and different proof. | Yes; barred because same criminal episode and same district with overlapping conduct. |
| Whether the prosecutor knew of the current charges before the first trial | Commonwealth: aware due to grand jury investigation and presentment. | George: not aware until grand jury investigation concluded. | Yes; prosecutor knew at the time of the 2007 guilty plea based on George's statement and information. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Fithian, 599 Pa. 180 (Pa. 2008) (establishes four-part test for Section 110(1)(ii))
- Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa. 482 (Pa. 1983) (defines 'criminal episode' and related temporal/logical considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Bracalielly, 540 Pa. 460 (Pa. 1995) (single episode when charges are logically/temporally related)
- Commonwealth v. Reid, 35 A.3d 773 (Pa. Super. 2012) (discussion of plenary review under § 110 and related standards)
- Commonwealth v. Anthony, 717 A.2d 1015 (Pa. 1998) (policy rationale for compulsory joinder to promote finality and efficiency)
- Commonwealth v. Schmidt, 919 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2007) (defines 'criminal episode' for episode-based bar under § 110)