Commonwealth v. Breeland

664 A.2d 1355 Pennsylvania, of COMMONWEALTH v. (at 16) BREELAND, Appellant

Antoine Pennsylvania, of COMMONWEALTH v. (at 27) COLEMAN, Jr., Appellant L.

Robert Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH (at 111) FREEMAN, Appellant Brian L. Pennsylvania. Superior Argued April 1995. Aug.

Filed 13, 1995. Reargument Denied Oct. Renn, York, Breeland, appellant. K. for Antoine

Richard Coleman, Jr., York, for Robert L. Eugene Campbell, R. appellant. Pell, York, Freeman, appellant. for Brian L.

Daniel M. Com., Fawcett, York, Christy Atty., H. Asst. Dist. for appellee. SOLE, CAVANAUGH, DEL

Before McEWEN and JJ. CAVANAUGH, Judge: 19,1994, Breeland, April appellants Antoine Robert

On Coleman, charged, by L. Brian L. Freeman were Jr. and indictment, federal with distribution of crack cocaine and 19, 1994, conspiracy April to distribute crack cocaine. Also homicide, City charged appellants York Police with criminal assault, robbery, conspiracy and criminal to com aggravated mit arose out of a charges these three offenses. The drug-related shooting incident which one man was killed seriously and another was wounded. The case on the federal to trial and Free charges proceeded appellants Coleman counts; guilty appellant man were found on both while Bree guilty charge acquitted land was found of the distribution but charge. all filed conspiracy Appellants subsequently motions that the state was barred pretrial alleging trial, principles virtue of the federal under of double rejected collateral The trial court jeopardy estoppel. and/or and denied relief. These consolidated appellants’ arguments review, appeals followed. After careful we affirm.1 first contend that the federal verdict bars the Appellants trial of the related state offenses under of double principles jeopardy, underlying because same facts and conduct are necessary prove both the federal and state offenses. More quash appeal, 1. The Commonwealth has filed a motion to this Brady, accordance with Commonwealth v. 510 Pa. 508 A.2d 286 (1986), ground appellants' on the claim is frivolous. "Pretrial denying jeopardy purposes orders claims are final orders for 154, 156, appeal.” Haefner, Commonwealth v. Pa. however, Brady, appeal Under from a motion to jeopardy grounds quashed dismiss on double will be where the trial finding court has considered the motion and made a written that the Brady motion is frivolous. 508 A.2d at 291. Absent such a Here, court, finding, appeal although will be heard. Id. the trial it issue, jeopardy relief on the double has not denied made written Therefore, finding the double issue is we will frivolous. appeal, quash entertain the and the motion to is denied. assert that because specifically, appellants’ drug-related case, introduced evidence the federal charge, conspiracy to distribute prove in order to the shooting clause, jeopardy the is barred double the state (the drug-related conduct necessary prove it will because be incident) been already have appellants for which shooting prosecuted. issue, must first the merits of this we addressing

Before inquiry. Appel- of our double scope jeopardy determine the by the inquiry lants the was established proper contend that Corbin, 495 v. U.S. Supreme Grady United States Court (1990), 508, 2084, adopted by 109 548 110 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d jeopardy analysis in this for of state double purposes Court Labelle, 179, 579 A.2d 1315 Pa.Super. v. 397 Commonwealth (1990) (en banc), 256, 531 Pa. 612 A.2d grounds, rev’d. other (1990).2 ‍​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‍Grady jeop- double analyzed 418 This Court has the ardy test and stated: is barred double

To determine whether a requires applica the the the jeopardy, prong inquiry first of U.S., 299, 180, Blockburger tion the 284 U.S. 52 S.Ct. of [v. the stаtu compares 76 306 test. Blockburger ] L.Ed. determine whether elements the offenses to tory charged of is a offense are identical or one lesser included they either of statutory provision requires proof of other. If each the not, not the they an additional fact which the other does are as such Blockburger prosecu “same offense” under the initial the prong inquiry. tion survives the in Gra- inquiry The second the was established prong if muster under the dy. pass Even the offenses would Labelle, adopted Grady by this that test was not Court We note the Supreme decision. in the sense that we chose to follow Court’s Supreme interpreting federal Decisions of the United States provisions, provide degree of constitutional constitutional minimum defendant, protection a and are which must be afforded criminal provisions. equally applicable analogous state constitutional Com- Edmunds, 374, 388, 887, 894 monwealth v. 526 Pa. 586 mandate, Grady a Court could test was constitutional this accept reject recognized simply not as we fit. We this or test saw jeopardy analysis in Appellants fact in Labelle. misstate our double Grady they reprеsent simply adopted case when that we test. test, Grady Court held that an additional Blockburger must be met to overcome requirement challenge. government, “[whether] We must determine offense charged [a to establish an essential element of an conduct that consti- subsequent] prosecution, prove will already the defendant has tutes an offense for which been prosecuted.” Grady v. Corbin, ^[495] U.S. at [520], added) (emphasis [in 109 L.Ed.2d at 564 S.Ct. Yingling ]. Yingling, Pa.Super. v.

Commonwealth omitted). (1991) (footnote 169, 171 Smith, 31, 33-34, 626 A.2d Pa.Super. v. Commonwealth Mitchell, (1993), quoting, 179-80 (1992). 229, 1093, 1094 227, Pa.Super. that the United Su-

The Commonwealth counters States the second or “samе con- preme specifically Court overruled Dixon, in v. 509 prong Grady duct” of the test United States (1993). Thus, 688, 2849, the 113 125 L.Ed.2d 556 U.S. S.Ct. jeopardy analysis that a double Commonwealth maintains Blockburger of the “same ele- requires only application ments” test. nonetheless, con- Grady contend that the “same

Appellants, (1) in the applicable present duct” test is case because: only application decision in Dixon has a limited and Court’s (2) the double only nominally Grady; jeopardy overruled affords Pennsylvania greater protec- clause of the Constitution (3) Constitution; tiоns to an accused than the Federal and “same conduct” test has been the law of this Commonwealth in Bol- since our Court’s decision Commonwealth v. Supreme den, 602, 472 Pa. 373 A.2d 90 Pennsylva

After federal and reviewing applicable caselaw, agree nia we with the Commonwealth that the Block- test, “same elements” which was in Dixon burger reespoused jeopardy as the under a federal double only inquiry necessary analysis, only inquiry necessary perform is likewise the when in ing jeopardy analysis Pennsylvania. a double From a Dixon, decision in it is Supreme review the U.S. Court’s

155 and emрhatically clear the Court abundantly specifically that as Grady, test rejected the “same conduct” overruled prece- Supreme inconsistent with both earlier Court wholly understanding and the clear common law dent Dixon, at-, 125 at 509 U.S. S.Ct. jeopardy. con- that the “same at 573. The Court also noted L.Ed.2d Grady unstable espoused proved had be duct” test confusion, be and must continuing source of application at---, 2863-64, Id. at 113 S.Ct. overruled. at 576-77. L.Ed.2d recently has ad- supreme note that our court

We also Pa. Caufman, dressed, (70 1995), July 20, W.D.App.Dkt.1993, filed Grady perform- test “same conduct” when applicability Caufman, recog- In court jeopardy analysis. a double ing Grady the United expressly had been overruled nized Dixon, test the “same conduct” Supreme States Blockburger rejected, that the “same elements” had been a double again inquiry performing was once the sole when test 662 A.2d at 1051. Our analysis. Caufman case, applying the merits of the court then addressed supreme recent the “same elements” test. court’s only contention that the Gra- pronouncement appellants’ undercuts in this Commonwealth. dy “same conduct” test remаins viable contention that the Penn respect appellants’ With sylvania provides greater jeopardy protec Constitution Constitution, merit. than the we likewise find no tion Federal aware, nor caselaw any neither are we Appellants proffer, where, Pennsylvania, in as higher which establishes a standard here, jurisdic in prosecutions there are successive different Moreover, provision of the Penn jeopardy tions. the double in sylvania identical to that found essentially Constitution is Constitution; Pennsylvania have the United States courts protection its than given jeopardy not citizens broader double by interpret provided Supreme that the United States v. Rosar ing the United States Constitution. Commonwealth io, appeal 202, 1244, (1992), 196, 613 1247 Pa.Super. 418 A.2d

156 v. (1993); 646, A.2d 151 Commonwealth Pa. 633 535 granted, 871, 8, n. 8 463, 876 ‍​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‍Marconi, 472 n. 490 Pa.Super. 340 (1985).3 “same con- the reject argument appellants’

alsoWe law of this Commonwealth the long duct” test has been first courts. We by Pennsylvania except overruled cannot be nonmajority decision was a the decision Bolden note that Mignogna, v. Commonwealth binding. thus is not See decisions of 188, (nonmajority Pa.Super. binding). are not cоurt supreme does not simply that Bolden further conclude alsoWe rely language on the Appellants appellants’ position. support a Bolden, against protects clause jeopardy that the double single for a “by prosecutions successive being harassed person After Bolden, 618, A.2d at 97. supra act.” 'wrongful and the court’s by appellants cited reviewing language Bolden, support proposition find no for holding we a “same conduct” test historically applied has Pennsylvania The court analysis. jeopardy a double conducting whеn on defendant’s that “if a mistrial is ordered Bolden held misconduct grossly negligent to intentional or motion due is judge, reprosecution or the part prosecutor of the 641, 373 A.2d at clause.” Id. at the double barred provision Pennsyl- party of the We that where a contends that note corresponding protection than a provides greater vania Constitution Constitution, parly must brief and States provision of the United analyze following factors: at least the four 1) provision; Pennsylvania the text of the constitutional caselaw; 2) including Pennsylvania history provision, states; 3) caselaw from other related considerations, 4) including unique and local policy issues concern, juris- Pennsylvania applicability within modem and their prudence. Here, Edmunds, appellants have failed supra at 586 A.2d at 895. appellant complied analyze Where an has not to brief or these factors. Edmunds, attempt explain no requirements of and has made with the Pennsylvania differ protections by the Constitution how the afforded Constitution, this protection afforded the United States from the Toro, analysis. to consider a state Court has declined Lucas, (1994); Pa.Super. Commonwealth v. 638 A.2d 991 appellants have Pa.Super. 622 A.2d 325 we find that its merits. argument and we will not consider waived this

157 or formu- to the existence has no relevance holding 109. This respect Pennsylvania. With a “same conduct” test lation of that succes- upon by appellants, relied language specific to the we act are wrongful prohibited, a single for prosecutions sive language general to read into such attempt reject any jeopardy for double “same conduct” test of a requirement purposes. dealing with

Moreover, Pennsylvania review of caselaw our аpplied our courts issues reveals that jeopardy double until the time exclusively up “same elements” test Blockburger in Grady. its decision handed down Supreme the U.S. Britcher, 515, 563 A.2d Pa.Super. v. 386 Commonwealth See (1991) (court’s (1989), 592 A.2d 686 aff'd, 527 Pa. 502 Blockburger analysis application limited to jeopardy double test); Swavely, v. 382 Pa.Su elements” Commonwealth “same (1989) (court “same elements” applied 946 per. Williams, 108, 496 test); Pa.Super. v. Commonwealth (1985) (court test); Blockburger Common applied A.2d 31 (1982) Maddox, 524, 453 A.2d 1010 Pa.Super. v. wealth court). (“same Grady after Only applied by elements” test constitutional mаn Supreme follow the Court’s did our courts conduct” test when date to also conduct a second or “same Smith, supra analysis. See performing jeopardy a double (court analysis enunciat applied pronged jeopardy two double Perillo, 1, 626 Pa.Super. v. Grady); ed Commonwealth (1993) (court test); pronged Grady applied A.2d 163 two A.2d 169 Yingling, Pa.Super. jeopardy analysis applied double (Grady pronged two court). for necessary it is not Finally, point we out that con overrule the “same Pennsylvania specifically courts to seem assert Caufman, supra. Appellants duct” test. See Supreme of the U.S. Pennsylvania’s acknowledgment test, “same conduct” apply Grady mandate to Court’s this test be independent requirement created an analysis under conducting jeopardy when a double performed clause Pennsylvania Constitution. The (along Constitution the Fifth Amendment of the United States it) applica- is interpreting with Court decisions Supreme U.S. Amendment. Rosar- through to the Fourteenth ble the states io, of a Acknowledgment A.2d at 1246. supra, at double applicable to a Supreme precedent United States Cоurt of that adoption not constitute an jeopardy analysis does Pennsylvania analysis. of Constitutional purposes decision for never that a “same conduct” Pennsylvania courts have held double Pennsylvania test is under the Constitution’s required (each Edmunds, may pro- See state jeopardy supra clause. go beyond protec- vide and the minimum broader standards Constitution). Our by tions the United States established test the applied courts the “same conduct” because only have do so. the required United Constitution us to States a “same Pennsylvania require Constitution can be said to only by as such is the United required conduct” test insofar overruled Supreme States When the U.S. Constitution. test, Grady longer conduct” there no rejected and the “same a “same applying existed or constitutional basis for legal a of the analysis. protections double jeopardy conduct” The Pennsylvania being Constitutions coexten- United States sive, of is follow the minimal level Pennsylvania only bound currently by protection required double the United Blockburger test. States “same elements” Constitution —the Caufman, supra. See present Ap now turn faсts of the case.

We to the of state pellants any do not contend that the offenses the they identical or that fall into the prosecutions federal are Appellants’ argument lesser included offenses. category of their entirely prong. “same conduct” We view focused implicit failure issue concession argue to brief this as In any Blockburger prosecution. does not bar event, of statutory definitions each of after review charges jurisdictions, charged we conclude that each both proof charges offense of an additional fact which requires such, in the the state jurisdiction prosecu other do not. As by Blockburger.4 tion is not barred required part apply conduct” test as Even if we were "same jeopardy analysis, issue a we would conclude that the conduct at that the state Appellants prosecution next contend provides § 111 That section is barred of the Crimes Code. as follows: prosecution

§ former 111. When barred jurisdiction. in another the concur- conduct constitutes an offense within

When jurisdiction rent of this Commonwealth and United state, such other any States or аnother jurisdiction a bar to a this subsequent prosecution is under the circumstances: following (1) acquittal first resulted an or a prosecution The (relating conviction as defined section 109 of this title to barred former ‍​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‍for the prosecution prosecution when offense) is based on subsequent prosecution same and the the conduct same unless:

(i) formerly the offense of which the defendant was for he is acquitted convicted or and the offense which of fact subsequently prosecuted requires proof each a of required by defining not the other and the law each substantially offenses is intended to a prevent such evil; different harm or or prosecution, appellants in the state was not the same conduct for which already prosecuted applying had been in federal court. In the "same that, test, Supreme an “[It] conduct” the U.S. Court cautioned is not inquiry The is what 'actual evidence’ or 'same evidence’ test. critical prove, the evidence the State will use to conduct the State will not Corbin, Smith, quoting, Grady prove supra, conduct.” 495 U.S. 508, 2084, (1990). Thus, purposes for of a 110 S.Ct. 109 L.Ed.2d 548 prosecution inquiry, simply “same conduct” it is not relevant that the trial, proffered drug-related shooting inci- the federal evidence of the charges. specific prove dents to the federal The conduct at issue in the conspiracy drugs trial the and the to distrib- federal was distribution drugs by appellants. prosecution, specific In conduct ute the state the murder, (and robbery conspiracy to at issue was the assault and offenses) appellants commit these in which the were involved. Al- drug peripherally though appellants' operation the was related to the chargеs, directly state that conduct was not at issue in the state Moreover, prosecution. the conduct which was the focus of the state assault, (murder, prosecution, robbery) for which was not conduct Therefore, appellants previously prosecuted. had been even were the Commonwealth, applicable "same conduct” test still in this the double subsequent prosecution. clause would not bar the the

(ii) when was not consummated the second offense began. former trial terminated, the

(2) after was The former found, a order byor final acquittal indictment was not set the which has been for defendant judgment or aside, which final order acquittal, or vacated and reversed incon- necessarily a determination judgment required or be for convic- fact which must established sistent with a subsequently is of which the defendant tion of offense prosecuted. 6, 834, 1,§ No. effective June Dec. P.L. § 111 determining applica- § 111. In whether is

18 Pa.C.S.A. case, are relevant: following inquiries given ble in a (1) un- proposes the Commonwealth Is the conduct for which individual dertake based on same jurisdiction? by the other prosecuted was (2) of a fact not require proof prosecutions Do each by the other? required designed prevent law the state offense defining Is the defining or evil the law substantially different harm than jurisdiction’s offense? other 359, 329, Pa.Super. 611 Scarfo, 416

Commonwealth (citations omitted). (1992) 242, It is howev- necessary, not 256 analysis. § in 111 er, every each these inquiries to make This has stated: is prosecution not based subsequent

If conclude that the we then our prosecution, as the federal the same conduct in since the statute makes clear analysis is concluded subsequent Common- prosecution such situation If, howеver, we conclude the subse- wealth is not barred. “is based on quent prosecution by appellant prosecuted conduct” for which was same if proceed only can government, federal (1) each of the following of the conditions exist: both proof required of a fact not prosecutions requires (2) other; which the Commonwealth upon the statute is prevent substantially based is intended to different harm than is the federal statute ... It would seem that an affirmative answer to the inquiry initial lowers the to the subsequent prosecution bar and that an affirma- only response tive to both of the remaining inquiries can lift the bar.

Id. 359-360, 257, quoting Commonwealth v. 611 A.2d at Abbott, (1983). 479, 488-89, 644, 319 Pa.Super. 466 A.2d § 111 begin analysis

We our an with examination of the first inquiry: whether prosecutions two are based upon the Mascaro, In Commonwealth v. same conduct. we defined “the same conduct” to encompass “any and all criminal behav- ior in support committed of a ‘common and continuing Id., 420, 427, 998, scheme.’” 260 Pa.Super. 394 A.2d different, Clearly, conduct is at issue between the charge federal of distribution of drugs, and the state charges homicide, aggravated assault and robbery. A morе difficult question is posed as to whether different conduct is at issue with respect to the state conspiracy charges (conspiracy to homicide, commit assault, aggravated and robbery), and the federal conspiracy charge (conspiracy to distribute drugs), where the homicide, assault, evidence related to the robbery is introduced attempt prove the federal conspiracy.

“The evil against which conspiracy statutes are directed is the illegal agreement or combination for criminal purposes. Separate underlying predicate merely acts are circumstantial proof of the agreement.” Commonwealth v. Savage, Pa.Super. (emphasis original). in any conspiracy charge, it will be alleged that an illegal agreement engage criminal activity has occurred. For purposes of a “same conduct” it analysis, is the object ultimate or purpose of that illegal agreement which will issue, be the conduct at may which not be the same subsequent prosecution. conduct, significant therefore, The lies not in predicate the acts which or suрport establish the existence of a conspiracy, but with the actual criminal purpose offense)

(or or to be promoted intended criminal which is conspiracy. ‍​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‍the by furthered Common analysis find for such support

We (1991). There, Traitz, Pa. 597 A.2d wealth prosecution a for considered whether Supreme Court our Act was Corrupt Organizations Pennsylvania the violations of of for violations the prior a federal barred (RICO). Act Corrupt Organizations Racketeer Influenced was at issue both the “same conduct” examining In whether and then stat the Court reviewed both stаtutes prosecutions, ed: conduct, illegal underlying not the is of

It the course acts, the are the focus of two individual criminal that therefore, examined, is to the The conduct be statutes. racketeering a of evincing pattern an individual conduct of not the individual of- The lies with activity. significance racketeering activity, of in the culminating pattern fenses of pattern the promoted the scheme is but racketeering activity. the at We same

Id. believe of here, as focus the applicable framework is analytical accomplish agreement conspiracy illegal statute is the criminal underlying and not the individual specific purpose, reviewing involving conspira §a claim acts. when only scheme” will be continuing a “common and cy charges, is the conspiracy or each goal purpose found where jurisdictions. in both same

Here, of the purpose federal prosecution, illegal drugs; clearly was distribution conspiracy in the acts involved actual appellants’ the relevant conduct was hand, In the other drug prosecution, distribution. the state kill, assault rob conspiracy wаs purpose and/or individuals; was the and the relevant conduct specific two two rival plot against execution of this these planning and was drugs by appellants’ distribution of drug dealers. The in the state was only peripherally implicated such, As conspiracy. or of that purpose goal not the ultimate 163 we conclude that the subsequent prosecution state was based conduct upon which was different from the prior federal Appellants’ merit, trial. argument is without § 111 does not bar the prosecution.5 state issue,

In the final appellant Breeland аsserts that the prosecution is by barred the doctrine of estop collateral pel.

“The doctrine of estoppel collateral prevents relitigation parties between of an issue where that issue has been previously decided a competent legal forum. The doc- trine applicable is to criminal prosecutions as well as to civil Wallace, matters.” Commonwealth v. 576, 411 Pa.Super. 581, 345, 602 doctrine, 348 The part “which is of the concept of double jeopardy, requires that where an ultimate fact has been necessаrily established favor of a defendant in a former prosecution, may the issue not be re- litigated any subsequent proceeding against the defen- Wharton, dant.” Commonwealth v. 430, 432, 406 Pa.Super. 696, (citations 697 (emphasis in original) omitted).

Smith, supra 36, 626 A.2d at In 181. determining whether estoppel collateral applies general from a verdict of acquittal, the United States Supreme Court has stated: previous

Where a judgment acquittal was based upon a verdict, general case, as is usually the this approach re- quires a court to “examine the prior record оf a proceeding, Although necessary 5. it is not remaining inquiries, § review the First, briefly we will questions. address both the offenses in each prosecution required proof required of a fact not in the other. We have already so appellants' determined in our resolution of supra. claim respect With inquiry, to the final we find that the laws defining the offenses in each substantially address different Wetton, 100, Compare harms or evils. Commonwealth v. 537 Pa. (1994) (federal A.2d 574 drug charges designed are to further governmental eliminating interest pervasive drug trafficking (state society) Scarfo, network in our supra charges with stemming from individual, murder, against violent acts directed an such as are de- signed physical against to deter invasions' pro- individual citizens and public safety). tect the necessary even if it were to reach these inquiries, two we would conclude that there is no merit to the conten- § tion that the state is barred evidence, charge, and the pleadings, into account

taking matter, jury a rational and conclude whether other relevant than upon an issue other grounded its verdict could have from consider- seeks to foreclose the defendant which in a frame and practical “must be set inquiry ation.” The of the proceed- to all the circumstances eye viewed with ings.” Swenson, 444, 90 S.Ct. U.S.

Ashe v. (1970); also Commonwealth Scho- see L.Ed.2d 475-6 maker, 404, 461 Pa. acquit- the jury that because Breeland contends

Appellant necessarily it con- charge, conspiracy him of the federal ted guilty not he not involved cluded that was and/or been introduced homicide/assault/robbery charges, which ‍​​​​​​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‍had such, As Breeland maintains that proof conspiracy. as prosecution on these estoppel subsequent bаrs his collateral charges in state court.6 trial, conclude of the federal we

After the record reviewing state subsequent does not bar the estoppel that collateral conspiracy acquitted of the federal Breeland was prosecution. its on a however, could have based verdict charge. The jury, no agreement appellant between finding simply that there was fact, did, in so co-conspirators. jury If the alleged his and any for it to make conclude, necessary it not have been would determinations, evidence regard any underlying to with such, charge. As conspiracy to prove offered which was lacks merit. argument this final arguments meritless the raised have reviewed found We charged The offenses by appellants. (homicide, aggravated as- subsequent state offenses)

sault, robbery, conspiracy commit these three Code, § of the Crimes jeopardy, are not barred therefore, We, affirm the lower court’s estoppel. or collateral estoppel Appellants have not raised collateral Freeman Coleman Breeland, they were cоnvicted appeal. Unlike both as issue this Thus, they charge they court. cannot now of each faced in federal in their was an fact which was established contend that there ultimate prosecution. in the former favor order which denied appellants’ pretrial motion to dismiss the charges grounds. these

Order affirmed.

McEWEN, J. concurs the result. SOLE,

DEL J. files a Concurring Statement. SOLE,

DEL Judge, concurring: join I that, the decision of the Majority but wish to reiterate for the reasons expressed footnote 3 at page we are no making determination on the issue of double jeopardy pursuant our state’s Constitution.

664A.2d 1364 Pennsylvania COMMONWEALTH of CAMERON, Appellant. Ronald Superior Pennsylvania. Court of

Argued June 1995. Sept.

Filed

Case Details

Case Name: Commonwealth v. Breeland

Court Name: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date Published: Aug 3, 1995

Citation: 664 A.2d 1355

Docket Number: 16; 27; 111

Court Abbreviation: Pa. Super. Ct.