Com. v. Horn, K. ( 2017 )

J-S32029-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
KRISTEN HORN
Appellee No. 2183 EDA 2016
Appeal from the Order Entered June 10, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0012270-2015
BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., STABILE, and FITZGERALD,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 21, 2017
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the June
10, 2016 order dismissing charges against Appellee Kristen Horn. We vacate
and remand.
The trial court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history:
On November 17, 2015, [Appellee] was stopped due to
having significant damage to her vehicle’s windows and using
cloth to cover up said damage. When the vehicle was stopped,
[Appellee] was sitting in the passenger seat while someone with
a suspended license was in the driver’s seat. Due to this traffic
violation, the police officer then began to effectuate a live stop.
As a result of being ordered out of the car to effect this live stop,
a silver revolver with a black grip became visible from under the
passenger seat as [Appellee] exited the vehicle. [Appellee] was
both issued a traffic violation report (TVR), for allowing her vehicle
to be driven by an unlicensed driver, and arrested for the alleged
Violation of the Uniform Firearms Act (VUFA). During the
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J-S32029-17
pendency of the VUFA charges, an adjudication for the traffic
violation was held on January 19, 2016, in which [Appellee] was
found not guilty in absentia.
Trial Court Opinion, 8/11/16, at 1-2.
The trial court dismissed the remaining charges against Appellee under
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110 because they arose out of the same criminal episode and
occurred within the same judicial district as the traffic violation for which
Appellee was found guilty in absentia. Indeed, § 110 normally bars a
subsequent prosecution where a former prosecution, arising out of the same
facts or criminal episode, resulted in an acquittal or conviction in the same
judicial district. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110(1)(ii). In Commonwealth v. Perfetto,
169 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2017)(en banc), however, this Court delineated an
exception to § 110’s compulsory joinder requirement unique to Philadelphia
County. Under Perfetto, a former prosecution for a summary traffic offense
within the jurisdiction of the traffic division of the Philadelphia Municipal Court
does not bar a subsequent prosecution arising out of the same facts or criminal
episode. In light of Perfetto, the trial court erred in dismissing the DUI
charges under § 110. We therefore vacate and remand for further
proceedings.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
-2-
J-S32029-17
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/21/2017
-3-