Com. v. Hymon, J.

J-S44023-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
JAHEED HYMON
Appellant No. 2151 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0011353-2014
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. , STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2017
Appellant, Jaheed Hymon, appeals from the June 17, 2015 judgment of
sentence imposing two years of probation for unauthorized use of a motor
vehicle plus restitution.1 We affirm.
The trial court recited the pertinent facts and procedural history in its
Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion:
This is an appeal by [Appellant], who appeals this court’s order
denying [Appellant’s] motion to dismiss pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A.
§ 110. On July 10, 2014, a Philadelphia police officer observed a
vehicle being operated with a driver’s side rear brake light out in
violation of [75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4303(b)]. The officer did an NCIC
check on the vehicle and discovered that the vehicle was stolen.
[Appellant] attempted to exit the vehicle without placing it in park
when the officers pulled the vehicle to initiate a stop. Officers
placed the vehicle, in park, secured [Appellant], and subsequently
charged him with receiving stolen property, and unauthorized use
____________________________________________
1 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928.
J-S44023-16
of a motor vehicle. The officer also issued [Appellant] a traffic
citation for operating a vehicle without a license and operating a
vehicle without rear headlights.
On September 11, 2014, [Appellant] was found guilty in absentia
for traffic violations before the Municipal Court-Traffic Division.
On April 17, 2015, [Appellant] filed a motion to dismiss his
criminal charges pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110. On June 17,
2015, this court denied the motion and found [Appellant] guilty of
unauthorized use of motor/other vehicles following a non-jury
trial.
Trial Court Opinion, 11/9/2015, at 1-2.
Immediately after the non-jury trial, the trial court sentenced Appellant
as set forth above. This timely appeal followed. Appellant raises one issue:
Did not the lower court err in denying [Appellant’s] motion to
dismiss pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110 where [Appellant] had
previously been convicted of an offense that arose from the same
criminal episode as the offense in the instant case?
Appellant’s Brief at 4. Section 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), 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, Appellant cannot obtain relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
-2-
J-S44023-16
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/29/17
-3-