198 A.3d 1187
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Appellant Terron Miller pled guilty in Blair County on Nov. 21, 2016 to six counts of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and related conspiracy charges for individual heroin sales to a confidential informant between June 2015 and Feb. 2016 and was sentenced to 5–15 years.
- On Apr. 3, 2017, the Pennsylvania Attorney General filed a grand-jury presentment charging Miller in a broader, statewide heroin-trafficking conspiracy spanning Jan. 1, 2015–Feb. 2, 2016, including counts of PWID, conspiracy, corrupt organizations, and related offenses.
- Miller filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the new prosecution on double jeopardy grounds (U.S. Fifth Amendment, Pa. Const. art. I § 10) and under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (successive prosecutions for different offenses arising from same episode).
- At the plea colloquy in 2016 Miller expressly waived any Section 110 objection to future charges tied to the same historical timeframes, but the record lacked a plea colloquy showing a knowing and intelligent waiver of the constitutional double jeopardy right.
- The trial court denied the pretrial motion, finding the presentment alleges a broader course of conduct (a statewide trafficking organization) than Miller’s prior individual-sale convictions and reserving the ability to reconsider if the Commonwealth’s proof at trial duplicates only the prior facts.
- Miller appealed interlocutorily; the Superior Court affirmed, concluding the new presentment is broader in scope and that the record does not show the prosecution will be limited to identical acts already adjudicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Miller) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new prosecution violates constitutional double jeopardy | New charges duplicate the exact conduct and evidence already pled to and punished; prosecution is barred | Presentment alleges a broader, interstate/statewide trafficking conspiracy; prior pleas won’t bar prosecution of additional conduct | Denied — no double jeopardy on the record because presentment alleges broader course of conduct; court will reconsider if proof is identical |
| Whether § 110 bars prosecution for different offenses arising from same episode | § 110 should bar successive prosecution because same episode and same jurisdiction | Miller waived § 110 at plea colloquy; plea agreement contemplated future grand-jury charges tied to same timeframes | Waiver of § 110 found (voluntary); § 110 waiver does not resolve constitutional claim because constitutional waiver must be knowing and intelligent |
| Whether Miller waived constitutional double jeopardy claim | Waiver of Section 110 at plea extends to constitutional double jeopardy | There was no thorough constitutional-colloquy; no knowing/intelligent waiver shown | No waiver of constitutional double jeopardy; Miller’s constitutional claim preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (same-elements test for double jeopardy)
- Commonwealth v. Ball, 146 A.3d 755 (Pa. 2016) (Pa. double jeopardy construed coextensively with federal)
- Commonwealth v. Kolovich, 170 A.3d 520 (Pa. Super. 2017) (double jeopardy protects against subsequent prosecutions for same act)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 466 A.2d 636 (Pa. Super. 1983) (distinguishing waiver standards: statutory waivers voluntary, constitutional waivers must be knowing and intelligent)
- Commonwealth v. Schmidt, 919 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2007) (appealability of denial of pretrial double jeopardy motion)
- Commonwealth v. Graham, 109 A.3d 733 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standards of review for constitutional questions)