Com. v. Solomon, M.

J-S44025-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
MATTHEW SOLOMON
Appellee No. 1863 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered May 21, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: MC-51-CR-0027528-2012
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED DECEMBER 29, 2017
Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, appeals from the trial
court’s May 21, 2015 order affirming the municipal court’s dismissal of
charges. We vacate and remand.
The trial court summarized the pertinent facts and procedural history:
[O]n July 7, 2012, Appellee Matthew Solomon was arrested
in Philadelphia after officers observed him disregard stop signs
and red lights, drive into oncoming traffic, and hit objects on the
curb. He was charged with the misdemeanor offense of driving
under the influence and two summary offenses for reckless driving
and disregarding red lights. On September 10, 2012, Solomon
was found guilty in absentia of both summary traffic offenses in
the Philadelphia Traffic Court; the DUI charge was not adjudicated
on that date. On October 22, 2014, Solomon moved to dismiss
the DUI charge in Municipal Court, arguing that the
Commonwealth was barred from prosecuting him under the
compulsory joinder provisions of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110[(1)](ii).
Trial Court Opinion, 8/25/15, at 1-2.
J-S44025-16
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, 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.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 12/29/17
-2-