Commonwealth v. Noss
162 A.3d 503
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Joseph Michael Noss was charged with aggravated assault and related offenses after an alleged violent incident; charges were filed July 16, 2015.
- ADA Cara Solimine signed the complaint, appeared at initial hearings, and requested one continuance; Officer Kara Kroll and Officer Joseph Koch were co-affiants.
- On September 2, 2015, with ADA Solimine absent, PD John Donovan, Officer Kroll, and Noss informed MDJ Whittaker there was an agreement for Noss to plead guilty to a new misdemeanor third‑degree disorderly conduct charge (a reduced charge) and to receive time‑served. MDJ Whittaker accepted the plea and sentenced Noss.
- ADA Solimine and Officer Koch arrived at the scheduled hearing time and learned the matter had been resolved without ADA Solimine’s participation or a written withdrawal by the prosecutor.
- The Commonwealth filed a petition for writ of certiorari; the trial court concluded the MDJ lacked jurisdiction to accept a plea to a reduced charge under 42 Pa.C.S. § 1515(a)(6)(i)(A), vacated the plea, and reinstated the original charges.
- Noss appealed; the Superior Court affirmed, holding (1) the MDJ lacked jurisdiction because the plea was to a reduced charge, (2) Officer Kroll was not shown to be the prosecutor’s authorized designee under Pa.R.Crim.P. 551, and (3) vacatur and reinstatement did not violate double jeopardy because the MDJ proceedings were a legal nullity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Noss) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did MDJ have jurisdiction to accept a plea to a misdemeanor that was a reduced charge? | MDJ could accept the plea as part of a negotiated disposition presented at the preliminary hearing. | The plea was to a reduced charge arising from originally filed felonies; §1515 bars MDJ jurisdiction over reduced charges. | Held: MDJ lacked jurisdiction because §1515 disallows MDJ jurisdiction when the misdemeanor is the result of a reduced charge. |
| 2. Was granting certiorari improper because the petition relied on disputed facts and an incomplete magisterial record? | Certiorari was improper where factual disputes exist about how the plea was reached. | Jurisdiction is a pure question of law; certiorari may review legal questions even if background facts conflict. | Held: Granting certiorari was proper because the question before the trial court was jurisdiction (a legal issue), not factual disputes. |
| 3. Did vacating the plea and reinstating charges violate double jeopardy? | Reinstating charges after acceptance of plea constituted successive prosecution barred by double jeopardy. | Because the MDJ lacked jurisdiction, the plea was a legal nullity and jeopardy never attached. | Held: No double jeopardy violation; proceedings before a court lacking jurisdiction are a nullity and do not attach jeopardy. |
| 4. Did the trial court err by granting certiorari without finding the MDJ abused discretion or lacked jurisdiction? | Trial court should not vacate plea absent a specific finding of MDJ abuse or lack of jurisdiction. | Trial court did find as a matter of law the MDJ lacked jurisdiction; any failure to develop argument waived the issue. | Held: Issue waived for lack of developed argument; alternatively, trial court did find lack of jurisdiction and abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Elisco v. Commonwealth, 666 A.2d 739 (Pa. Super. 1995) (writ of certiorari in summary criminal matters reviews questions of law only)
- Bastian v. Sullivan, 117 A.3d 338 (Pa. Super. 2015) (de novo review of legal questions on certiorari)
- John v. Commonwealth, 854 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2004) (jurisdictional issues are questions of law)
- Commonwealth v. States, 891 A.2d 737 (Pa. Super. 2005) (double jeopardy bars successive prosecutions and multiple punishments)
- United States v. Tateo, 377 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1964) (a conviction set aside for procedural error does not bar retrial)
- Commonwealth v. Oliver, 869 A.2d 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (proceedings without subject‑matter jurisdiction are legal nullities and do not attach jeopardy)
- Commonwealth v. Keenan, 530 A.2d 90 (Pa. Super. 1987) (unitary analysis of state and federal double jeopardy protections)
- Lackner v. Glosser, 892 A.2d 21 (Pa. Super. 2006) (issues not developed in brief are waived)