Commonwealth v. Young
35 A.3d 54
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Young was charged with access device fraud, theft by unlawful taking, and receiving stolen property after allegedly using an ATM card to withdraw money.
- At the first trial, the jury reached a verdict on one count but was deadlocked on the other two; the court declared a mistrial without recording the verdicts.
- The Commonwealth amended the information to add a second access device fraud count; a second jury convicted Young on receiving stolen property and two counts of access device fraud.
- Young challenged the second trial as violative of double jeopardy; this Court previously held he waived the claim by not timely moving to dismiss before the second trial.
- PCRA proceedings followed; the PCRA court denied relief, but resentenced Young after correcting a prior scoring error.
- The Superior Court held that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a double jeopardy claim regarding the receiving stolen property charge, vacated that conviction, and affirmed the remaining aspects of the PCRA relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not raising double jeopardy before the second trial | Young argues counsel failed to object to mistrial and second trial on double jeopardy grounds. | Commonwealth contends waiver applied and mistrial was proper for manifest necessity on some counts. | Ineffective for failing to raise double jeopardy regarding receiving stolen property; retrial barred. |
| Whether theft by unlawful taking is a lesser included offense of receiving stolen property | Goins/Wilds framing supports that TUL may be lesser included of RSP, creating double jeopardy issues if retried. | Commonwealth contends no such inclusion undermines double jeopardy arguments for retrial on RSP. | TUL is a lesser included offense of RSP; not conserving retrial on RSP after acquittal on TUL. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. McCord, 700 A.2d 938 (Pa. Super. 1997) (jeopardy attaches after jury sworn; manifest necessity for mistrial analyzed)
- Commonwealth v. Walker, 954 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super. 2008) (mistrial decisions require manifest necessity; strict review of less drastic alternatives)
- Commonwealth v. Goins, 867 A.2d 526 (Pa. Super. 2004) (elements test guidance for double jeopardy and lesser included offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (double jeopardy protections and related precedent)
- Commonwealth v. Rippy, 732 A.2d 1216 (Pa. Super. 1999) (lesser included offense doctrine between theft-related offenses)
- Commonwealth v. Henley, 504 Pa. 408 (Pa. 1984) (illustrative context for double jeopardy and related offenses in theft cases)