Commonwealth v. Sabula
46 A.3d 1287
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Sabula was the target in a Fayette County drug investigation and was arrested after a July 27, 2010 controlled buy.
- Police recovered heroin and drug paraphernalia from Sabula and his vehicle, and Sabula provided inculpatory statements during interrogations.
- Detective Reese offered Sabula a pre-arrest agreement: cooperate as an informant to set up a supplier and delivery of heroin in exchange for no/prosecution in the current case.
- Reese did not obtain District Attorney authorization for the agreement prior to its execution, and Sabula arranged a bogus delivery with a non-supplier.
- On December 21, 2010, Sabula allegedly failed to comply, and charges were filed for the July 21, 2010 incident.
- Sabula filed an omnibus pretrial motion seeking enforcement of the pre-arrest agreement; the trial court denied the motion on June 13, 2011, and Sabula appealed that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the order appealable as a collateral order? | Sabula argues collateral-order appealability under Rule 313(b). | Commonwealth argues the order is not appealable collaterally. | Appeal not cognizable as collateral order; quashed |
| Did the trial court err in refusing to enforce the pre-arrest agreement? | Sabula contends the Commonwealth breached the nonprosecution agreement and must honor it. | Commonwealth contends there was no proper authorization and enforcement is inappropriate. | Court did not reach merits; lacked collateral-order jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Brister, 16 A.3d 530 (Pa.Super.2011) (defines appealability of collateral orders and independent jurisdiction inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 876 A.2d 939 (Pa.2005) (collateral-order review requires independent assessment)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass’n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa.2009) (narrow construction of collateral-order doctrine to avoid piecemeal litigation)
- Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063 (Pa.Super.2010) (order separable from main cause if reviewable independently)
- Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 9 A.3d 206 (Pa.Super.2010) (rights at stake must implicate public policy beyond the case)
- Commonwealth v. Ginn, 402 Pa.Super.405 (Pa.Super.1991) (integrity of the judicial system requires Commonwealth to honor promises)
- Commonwealth v. Hemingway, 13 A.3d 491 (Pa.Super.2011) (Commonwealth bound by pre-trial agreements)
- Keefer v. Keefer, 741 A.2d 808 (Pa.Super.1999) (irreparable-lost element requires disappearance of issue due to trial)
- Commonwealth v. Montgomery, 799 A.2d 149 (Pa.Super.2002) (procedural consequences of nonprosecution do not satisfy collateral-order prong)
- Commonwealth v. Harris, 32 A.3d 243 (Pa.2011) (collateral-order doctrine applied to rights of review)