J-E03010-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
GARY GARNETT JORDAN :
: No. 1392 EDA 2015
Appellant
Appeal from the Order April 13, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0014422-2014
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., PANELLA, J., LAZARUS, J., OTT, J.,
STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., MOULTON, J., and RANSOM, J.
MEMORANDUM BY RANSOM, J.: FILED DECEMBER 12, 2017
Appellant, Gary Garnett Jordan, appeals from the order entered April
13, 2015, denying his motion to dismiss, which asserted a violation of
Pennsylvania’s compulsory joinder rule. See 18 Pa.C.S. § 110. After careful
review, we remand with instructions.
We derive the following statement of facts and procedural background
of this case from the record. In November 2014, Appellant was arrested in
the City and County of Philadelphia.1 At that time, Appellant was charged with
driving under the influence (“DUI”), and the summary traffic offense of
____________________________________________
1 Philadelphia is the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania. 42 Pa.C.S. § 901(a).
J-E03010-16
careless driving.2 In January 2014, Appellant pleaded guilty to disregarding a
traffic device in the Philadelphia Municipal Court Traffic Division. The DUI
charge was listed in the Philadelphia Municipal Court General Division for
disposition, and Appellant was found guilty of DUI in October 2014. Appellant
timely appealed the conviction pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1006, requesting a
trial de novo before the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia.
In the Court of Common Pleas, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, known as the compulsory joinder rule. 3
Following submission of briefs and a hearing, the Honorable Vincent N.
Melchiorre denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss. However, no findings of fact
or findings as to the frivolousness of the motion were entered on the record.
Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 4/13/2015 at 3-8.
Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. No 1925(b) statement was
ordered. Nevertheless, in August 2015, the trial court filed an opinion
explaining its decision. In July 2016, this Court issued a memorandum opinion
____________________________________________
2 See 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 3802 (graded as a misdemeanor), and 3714, respectively.
3 This Court addressed the compulsory joinder rule in our recent decision,
Commonwealth v. Perfetto, 169 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc).
The Perfetto Court recognized, “[s]ection 110 is a codification of the rule
announced by our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Campana, 304 A.2d
432 (Pa. 1973), vacated and remanded, 94 S. Ct. 73 (1973), reinstated, 314
A.2d 854 (Pa. 1974), cert. denied, 94 S. Ct. 3172 (1974). In Campana, our
Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause requires a prosecutor to
bring, in a single proceeding, all known charges against a defendant arising
from a single criminal episode.” Perfetto, 169 A.3d at 1117 (most internal
citations and quotations omitted).
-2-
J-E03010-16
affirming the trial court. Thereafter, Appellant petitioned this Court for en
banc reargument, and en banc certification was granted in August 2016.
Appellant raises the following claim for our review:
1. Did not the lower court err in denying [A]ppellant’s motion to
dismiss pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 where [A]ppellant had
previously been convicted of an offense which arose from the
same criminal episode as the offense in the instant case?
Substituted Brief for Appellant, at 3.
As an initial matter, we must determine whether this Court has
jurisdiction over the instant appeal. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d
1017, 1021 (Pa. Super. 2015) (noting that issues of jurisdiction may be raised
sua sponte).
Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 587(B) governs motions to
dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B). An order denying
such a motion may be appealable as a collateral order.4 An immediate appeal
from the denial of a double jeopardy claim is allowable under the collateral
order doctrine where the motion is found not to be frivolous. See
Commonwealth v. Brady, 508 A.2d 286, 289-91 (1986) (holding that
absent a finding of frivolousness, an appeal may be taken from the denial of
a motion to dismiss). In our recent decision, Commonwealth v. Diggs, ---
____________________________________________
4 “A collateral order is an order separable from and collateral to the main cause
of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and
the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment
in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.” Pa.R.A.P. 313(b).
-3-
J-E03010-16
A.3d --- (Pa. Super. 2017), we held that Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B) applies to
motions to dismiss based on compulsory joinder “[a]s Section 110 embodies
the same basic purposes as those underlying the double jeopardy clauses,
[and] the interlocutory appealability of double jeopardy claims has been
applied to claims based on Section 110.” Diggs, --- A.3d ---, *5 (citing
Commonwealth v. Bracalielly, 658 A.2d 755, 759-60 (Pa. 1995)); see also
Pa.R.A.P. 313(b). Accordingly, appellate jurisdiction exists only where a court
determines that a motion to dismiss on compulsory joinder grounds is not
frivolous and thereby qualifies as a collateral order. Diggs, --- A.3d ---, *5-
6; Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B).
Here, our review of the transcript and record reveals that the trial court
failed to comply with Rule 587(B), as it denied Appellant's motion to dismiss
based on compulsory joinder without entering on the record a statement of
findings of fact or a specific determination regarding whether Appellant's
motion was frivolous. N.T., 4/13/2015 at 3-8; see Pa.R.Crim.P. 587(B)(3)-
(4). Accordingly, this Court may not exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. In
light of Diggs, we are constrained to remand this matter to the Court of
Common Pleas for additional findings and with instructions to comply with Rule
587(B).
Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this memorandum.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
-4-
J-E03010-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/12/2017
-5-
Com. v. Jordan, G.
Combined Opinion