Com. v. Cruz, J. ( 2017 )

J. S67009/16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION – SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 2449 EDA 2015
:
JOHNATHAN CRUZ :
Appeal from the Order Entered July 16, 2015,
in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No. CP-51-CR-0001778-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., RANSOM, J. AND STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 12, 2017
The Commonwealth appeals from the July 16, 2015 order entered in
the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County that granted appellee
Johnathan Cruz’s motion to dismiss, which asserted a violation of
Pennsylvania’s compulsory joinder rule codified at 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110.
Based on this court’s recent en banc decision in Commonwealth v.
Perfetto, A.3d , 2017 WL 3776631 (Pa.Super. 2017) (en banc), we
reverse and remand.
The trial court set forth the following:
[Appellee] was arrested on August 10, 2012, and
charged with possession with the intent to distribute,
possession of a controlled substance, violations of
the uniform firearms act, possession of an
instrument of crime, receiving stolen property, and
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J. S67009/16
conspiracy.[Footnote 1] At the time of his arrest,
[appellee] was also charged with two summary
traffic citations arising from the same incident:
operating a vehicle without a license and operating a
vehicle without a rear light.[Footnote 2] The traffic
violations were brought before Traffic Court on
October 12, 2012. [Appellee] was tried and found
guilty in absentia at this time. The trial
in absentia occurred while [appellee] was in
custody on an unrelated matter. [The]
Commonwealth then proceeded with the prosecution
of the remaining misdemeanor and felony charges in
Common Pleas Court. [Appellee] filed a motion to
dismiss on the basis that the compulsory joinder rule
bars the second prosecution after a first trial was
already held in the traffic division. [Appellee’s]
motion was granted on July 16, 2015.
[Footnote 1] 35 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 780-
113(a)(30), 780-113(a)(16)[;]
18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1),
6108, 907(a), 3925(a), and 903(c),
respectively.
[Footnote 2] 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1501(a)
and 4303(b), respectively.
Trial court opinion, 11/18/15 at 1-2 (acronyms and record references
omitted).
The record reflects that the Commonwealth filed a timely notice of
appeal to this court and, simultaneously and without being ordered to
pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), a concise statement of errors complained of
on appeal. Subsequently, the trial court filed a Rule 1925(a) opinion.
The Commonwealth raises the following issue for our review: “Did the
lower court err when, in contravention of Supreme Court precedent, it
dismissed felony and misdemeanor charges pursuant to [the compulsory
-2-
J. S67009/16
joinder statute,] 18 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 110[,] based on the prior adjudication of
summary traffic offenses?” (Commonwealth’s brief at 4.)
Here, in analyzing whether the compulsory joinder rule barred the
subsequent felony prosecution, the trial court correctly applied the
four-prong test set forth in Commonwealth v. Reid, 77 A.3d 579, 582 (Pa.
2013). Under that test, the compulsory joinder rule bars a subsequent
prosecution if each of the following is met:
(1) the former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or
conviction; (2) the current prosecution was based on
the same criminal conduct or arose from the same
criminal episode; (3) the prosecutor in the
subsequent trial was aware of the charges before the
first trial; and (4) all charges [are] within the same
judicial district as the former prosecution.
Id. (citation omitted; bracket in original).
In applying this test, the trial court found that the compulsory joinder
rule barred appellee’s subsequent felony prosecutions because all four
prongs were met. Preliminary, we note that no dispute exists that appellee’s
prosecution on the summary traffic offenses resulted in convictions, that the
felony prosecution would be based on the same criminal conduct or arose
from the same criminal episode, and that the Commonwealth knew of the
felony charges before the summary trial. In light of Perfetto, 2017 WL
3776631, however, appellee fails to satisfy the fourth Reid test prong.
In Perfetto, 2017 WL 3776631 at *11, this court held that where a
defendant’s summary traffic offense was to be heard solely in the
-3-
J. S67009/16
Philadelphia Municipal Court Traffic Division pursuant to its jurisdiction in
accordance with Pa.C.S.A. § 1302(a.1)(1)(i), a prior disposition of that
summary traffic offense in traffic court does not bar a later prosecution of
other criminal charges that arose in the same judicial district and at the
same time as the summary traffic offense because Section 1302 carves out
an exception to compulsory joinder and directs that the summary traffic
offense is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the traffic court. Consequently,
appellee’s subsequent prosecution on the misdemeanor and felony charges
was not barred by compulsory joinder.
Order reversed. Case remanded for proceedings consistent with this
memorandum. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/12/2017
-4-