Com. v. Miller, J. ( 2016 )

J-S27014-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
JARED LEE MILLER,
Appellee No. 1696 MDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered September 3, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-54-CR-0002059-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN and DUBOW, JJ., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY SHOGAN, J.: FILED MAY 13, 2016
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the September 3,
2015 order dismissing charges filed against Jared Lee Miller (“Appellee”).
We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
The trial court provided the following factual history:
On October 13, 2014, [at approximately 9:30 a.m.]
Corporal Robert Ligon observed a vehicle driving erratically
through Tower City and performed a traffic stop. [Appellee] was
a passenger. Corporal Ligon quickly discerned that the driver
was under the influence of drugs and arrested her for driving
under the influence. While performing a custodial inventory
search, 48 packets of heroin were discovered under [Appellee’s]
seat and 52 bags of heroin were found in the driver’s purse.
Other drug paraphernalia was also found in the purse.
[Appellee] was arrested and charged with possession with the
intent to deliver a controlled substance, possession of a
____________________________________________
*
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S27014-16
controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, and
public drunkenness under docket number CR-1880-2014. After
his arrest, he was arraigned and then committed to Schuylkill
County Prison. During intake at the prison [around 5:00 p.m.],
[Appellee] was warned about bringing contraband inside, but he
denied having any. A subsequent search by prison guards at
intake produced a hypodermic needle containing heroin found
inside his underwear. This led to the current contested charges
under docket number CR-2059-2014.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/3/15, at 1–2. The charges at CR-1880-2014 were
filed in Schuylkill County District Court 21-3-04. Appellee was charged at
CR-2059-2014 with possession of a controlled substance by an inmate,
possession of drug paraphernalia, and contraband other than a controlled
substance.1 Those charges were filed in Schuylkill County District Court 21-
3-07.
Appellee was tried by jury at CR-1880-2014 on April 6, 2014, and
found guilty of all charges except possession with intent to deliver a
controlled substance. He began serving his sentence on October 13, 2014,
and was paroled on June 15, 2015. Three weeks later, on July 7, 2015,
Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the charges at CR-2059-2014, raising
defenses of double jeopardy and joinder. Motion for Reduction of Bail and
Dismissal of Charges, 7/7/15, at ¶¶ 13, 14. The trial court conducted a
hearing on July 20, 2015, and accepted supplemental briefs. Thereafter, the
trial court granted Appellee’s motion to dismiss on September 3, 2015,
____________________________________________
1
18 Pa.C.S. § 5123(a)(2), 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32), and 18 Pa.C.S. §
5123(c), respectively.
-2-
J-S27014-16
finding that the two incidents were part of a single criminal episode. Trial
Court Opinion, 9/3/15, at 5.
This appeal followed. The Commonwealth presents a single question
for our consideration: “Did the Trial Court err in determining that the facts
in the instant matter constituted the ‘same criminal episode’ as those found
in docket # 1880-2014 and subsequently granting [Appellee’s] Motion for
Dismissal.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 4.
The Commonwealth argues that trying Appellee at CR-2059-2014 does
not violate the federal or state constitutional guarantee against double
jeopardy2 or Pennsylvania’s compulsory joinder rule, 18 Pa.C.S. § 110.
According to the Commonwealth, because “the two incidents occurred at
different times, at difference places, following a clear break in criminal
activity and involved different facts and witnesses they were not of the same
criminal episode.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 7. We agree.
The double jeopardy guarantee requires a prosecutor to bring all
known charges against a defendant arising from a “single criminal episode”
in a single proceeding. Commonwealth v. Campana, 304 A.2d 432, 441
____________________________________________
2
See U.S. Const. amend. V (“nor shall any person be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”); Pa. Const. art. I, § 10
(“No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb”). “The double jeopardy protections afforded by the United States and
Pennsylvania Constitutions are coextensive and prohibit successive
prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.”
Commonwealth v. States, 891 A.2d 737, 741 (Pa. Super. 2005).
-3-
J-S27014-16
(Pa. 1973), vacated and remanded, 414 U.S. 808, (1973), reinstated, 314
A.2d 854 (Pa. 1974), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 969 (1974). “The compulsory
joinder statute[3] is a legislative mandate that a subsequent prosecution for a
violation of a provision of a statute that is different from a former
prosecution, or is based on different facts, will be barred in certain
circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66, 71 (Pa. 2008).
As our Supreme Court has explained:
The compulsory joinder rule bars a subsequent prosecution if
each prong of the following test 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.
Commonwealth v. Nolan, 855 A.2d 834, 839 (Pa. 2004) (footnote and
citations omitted); 18 Pa.C.S. § 110(1). “Each prong of this test must be
met for compulsory joinder to apply.” Fithian, 961 A.2d at 72. Our
Supreme Court has further stated, “Pennsylvania’s compulsory joinder rule
. . . is designed to protect a defendant’s double-jeopardy interests where the
Commonwealth initially declines to prosecute him for the present offense,
electing to proceed on different charges stemming from the same criminal
____________________________________________
3
18 Pa.C.S. section 110 is a codification of the rule announced by our
Supreme Court in Campana. Commonwealth v. Gimbara, 835 A.2d 371,
374 (Pa. Super. 2003).
-4-
J-S27014-16
episode.” Commonwealth v. Laird, 988 A.2d 618, 628 (Pa. 2010)
(citations omitted).
Because the constitutional and statutory claims asserted herein are
purely matters of law, our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v.
Barber, 940 A.2d 369, 376 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted). As with all
questions of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo[.]”
Commonwealth v. Vargas, 947 A.2d 777, 780 (Pa. Super. 2008) (quoting
Commonwealth v. Kositi, 880 A.2d 648, 652 (Pa. Super. 2005)).
The case at hand involves the second prong of section 110, known as
the logical relationship prong. We have addressed a logical relationship
analysis as follows:
In the seminal case of Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa.
482, 458 A.2d 177 (1983), we instructed courts considering the
logical relationship prong to look at the “temporal” and “logical”
relationship between the charges to determine whether they
arose from a “single criminal episode.” Id., at 181. To this end,
we noted:
Generally, charges against a defendant are clearly
related in time and require little analysis to
determine that a single criminal episode exists.
However, in defining what acts constitute a single
criminal episode, not only is the temporal sequence
of events important, but also the logical relationship
between the acts must be considered.
Id.
With regard to the logical relationship, we noted:
In ascertaining whether a number of statutory
offenses are “logically related” to one another, the
court should initially inquire as to whether there is a
-5-
J-S27014-16
substantial duplication of factual, and/or legal issues
presented by the offenses. If there is duplication,
then the offenses are logically related and must be
prosecuted at one trial. The mere fact that the
additional statutory offenses involve additional issues
of law or fact is not sufficient to create a separate
criminal episode since the logical relationship test
does not require “an absolute identity of factual
backgrounds.”
Id. (quoting Paul Jerome Richey, Comment, Commonwealth v.
Campana and Section 110 of the Crimes Code: Fraternal Twins,
35 U. Pitt. L.Rev. 275, 286–87 (1973)).
In Commonwealth v. Bracalielly, 540 Pa. 460, 658 A.2d
755 (1995), we interpreted Hude’s guidance on the logical
relationship determination as follows:
In determining if the “logical relationship” prong of
the test has been met, we must ... be aware that a
mere de minimis duplication of factual and legal
issues is insufficient to establish a logical relationship
between offenses. Rather, what is required is a
substantial duplication of issues of law and fact. In
Hude, we found that such substantial duplication
had occurred. We did not, however, reach this
conclusion by merely cataloguing simple factual
similarities or differences between the various
offenses with which the defendant was charged.
Rather, we found that these offenses presented
substantial duplication of issues of law and fact
because the case did not involve “a situation where
different evidence was required to be introduced to
establish the alleged individual instances of
possession and delivery”, but rather, involved a
situation in which the Commonwealth’s case in both
the first and second drug trials rested solely upon
the credibility of a single witness. Thus, we
concluded that the drug charges brought against the
defendant were not only temporally related but also
logically related, and thus constituted a single
criminal episode.
Id., at 761–62 (internal citations and footnote omitted).
-6-
J-S27014-16
Commonwealth v. Reid, 77 A.3d 579, 582–583 (Pa. 2013). “There is no
substantial duplication, for example, if “proof of each individual instance of
[crimes committed] . . . require[s] the introduction of the testimony of
completely different police officers and expert witnesses as well as the
establishment of separate chains of custody.” Id. at 585 (quoting
Bracalielly, 658 A.2d at 762).
Here, relying on Commonwealth v. Edwards, 399 A.2d 747, 748
(Pa. Super. 1979), the trial court conducted a logical relationship analysis
and concluded that a single criminal episode existed:
[Appellee] provided case law to support his position that
the offenses were from a single criminal episode, but all were
distinguishable from the present facts. However,
Commonwealth v. Edwards, 264 Pa. Super. 223, 225, 399
A.2d 747, 748 (1979) is analogous to the facts presented here.
In Edwards, a witness saw the defendant and three co-
defendants take packages from a United Parcel Services truck
and speed off in a car. The witness provided a license plate
number to police and soon after an officer stopped the vehicle
and discovered one of the packages inside. Id. The defendant
was an occupant of the vehicle and repeatedly gave false
identification. Id. at 225, 749. His true identity was not
determined until he was fingerprinted. Id. The defendant was
then separately charged with unsworn falsification to authorities
and he pled guilty to this charge. Id. Several months later, he
was tried by jury with his co-defendants on the theft charges
which resulted in a mistrial. Id. When a new trial was
scheduled, the defendant appealed, raising the double jeopardy
issue. Id. The court found that in many situations, unlawful
conduct committed at the time of arrest is part of the same
episode as the original crime. Id. at 228, 750. The court cited
the Model Penal Code, explaining,
in many instances one offense is a necessary step in
the accomplishment of a given criminal objective; in
-7-
J-S27014-16
other instances the commission of an additional
offense may result from the attempt to secure the
benefit of a previous offense or to conceal its
commission. . . such offenses should be adjudicated
in a single trial.
Id. The court concluded that by hiding his identity, the
defendant was attempting to avoid prosecution for the theft
offenses. It is also noted that the attempts to mislead police
occurred within thirty minutes of the alleged offenses and his
actions were relevant evidence in his theft trial, reflecting a
guilty state of mind. Id. The court concluded that the charges
should have been consolidated. Id.
Here, [Appellee] was charged with numerous drug offenses
relating to heroin and was arrested and being processed for
intake into the prison when more heroin in a syringe was found
on his person. His separate offenses were all drug related and
occurred within hours of each other. Since [Appellee] never left
police custody, [Appellee] must have had the heroin on his
person during the initial traffic stop but it went undiscovered by
police. Like Edwards, [Appellee’s] continued concealment of
the syringe of heroin on his person was an attempt to conceal
another offense and to avoid adding even more drug charges to
his case. His possession of the heroin on his person could even
have been used as evidence of intent for personal use, rather
than to sell. There is a substantial duplication of law and fact.
This Court concludes that [Appellee’s] possession of the syringe
was part of the same criminal episode as the charges for which
he was originally prosecuted and should have been consolidated
with those charges for trial.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/3/15, at 4–5.
We reiterate that “the determination of whether . . . the offenses
present a substantial duplication of issues of fact and law . . . depends
ultimately on how and what the Commonwealth must prove in the
subsequent prosecution.” Reid, 77 A.2d at 585. Here, different evidence
was required to establish the offenses alleged in each case.
-8-
J-S27014-16
The first incident occurred at 9:30 a.m. and involved a traffic stop
where Appellee was a passenger. The second incident occurred seven hours
later at 5:00 p.m. and involved Appellee’s intake at the Schuylkill County
Prison. The first incident involved forty-eight bags of heroin stashed under
Appellee’s seat, and fifty-two bags of heroin and syringes in the driver’s
purse. The second incident involved a hypodermic needle containing
heroin—not a syringe—found in Appellee’s underwear.4 The evidence
supports a reasonable inference that Appellee possessed the hypodermic
needle at the time of his arrest; however, its presence on his person did not
give rise to criminal charges until its discovery at intake. Cf.
Commonwealth v. Stewart, 425 A.2d 346, 348 (Pa. 1981) (holding single
criminal episode existed where firearm and drugs were found on defendant
“at precisely the same time”). Although Appellee remained in custody
throughout the day, the Commonwealth’s witness for the first incident was
Corporal Ligon. The second incident involved completely different
Commonwealth witnesses—the prison guards. Accord Commonwealth v.
Purnell, 516 A.2d 1203, 1207 (Pa. Super. 1986) (rejecting compulsory
joinder argument where defendant was arrested by an officer for disorderly
conduct then charged with assaulting a different officer upon arrival at the
____________________________________________
4
Affidavit of Probable Cause, 12/3/14. The police overlooking a single
needle in Appellee’s underwear upon searching him incident to arrest is a
more plausible scenario than failing to detect a syringe on his person.
-9-
J-S27014-16
police station). Nothing in the record indicates that Appellee was asked if he
had drugs or paraphernalia on his person at the time of arrest. However, at
intake, Appellee was asked and denied having contraband. Although both
incidents involved possession charges, the first incident also included a
charge of public drunkenness, and the second incident involved charges
specific to Appellee’s status as an inmate.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude there was no substantial
duplication of issues of fact or law. Thus, the two prosecutions did not arise
from the same criminal episode. Furthermore, we agree with the
Commonwealth that Edwards is distinguishable:
In finding [that the two sets of charges were based upon conduct
that constituted the same criminal episode], the [Edwards] Court
noted that the false identification was “an effort to avoid
prosecutions for the [theft] offenses, much as resisting arrest
would be.” [Edwards], at 750. Further, the giving of false
identification “occurred within one-half hour of the alleged
offenses, and while [the defendant] was still in the company of
his accomplices making their ‘getaway.’” Id. Lastly, the opinion
noted that the “false statements were relevant evidence against
him in his trial for the principal offenses”. Id.None of the facts that this Honorable Court found pertinent
in Edwards are true in this case. [Appellee] was not still in the
company of his accomplice. He was not in the process of making
a getaway from the initial charges. In taking contraband into
the prison he was not trying to avoid prosecution for the initial
charges. The taking of contraband into the prison did not
happen within one-half hour of the initial charges, but seven and
one-half hours. Finally, the taking of contraband into the prison
was not relevant to prove that he initially possessed heroin with
the intent to distribute it.
- 10 -
J-S27014-16
Commonwealth’s Brief at 17. Here, neither Appellee’s possession of a
hypodermic needle in his underpants while being processed at the county
prison nor his possession of controlled substances and syringes seven hours
earlier while a passenger in a vehicle was relevant to proving the other
offense. Accord Commonwealth v. Walton, 592 A.2d 335, 338 (Pa.
Super. 1991) (holding that neither illegally possessing a firearm nor making
a false report to police was necessary to prove the other offense and,
therefore, the offenses did not occur as a part of the same criminal episode).
The trial court erred in ruling otherwise and in dismissing the charges
against Appellee. Accordingly, we reverse.
Order reversed. Case remanded for trial. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 5/13/2016
- 11 -