Com. v. Scott, R.

J-S04025-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
ROBERT DERWIN SCOTT :
:
Appellant : No. 139 EDA 2015
Appeal from the Order Entered December 29, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0011581-2014
BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 19, 2019
Robert Derwin Scott appeals from the order entered December 29,
2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, denying his
motion to dismiss charges based on a violation of the compulsory joinder rule.1
This matter returns to our Court on remand from the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, vacating our prior decision of December 28, 2017, and ordering this
Court to proceed in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in
Commonwealth v. Perfetto, ___ A.3d ____, 2019 WL 1866653 (Pa. Apr.
____________________________________________
* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
1 Scott was charged with violating 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1501(a) (Driving without a
License), 1543(a) (Driving while Operating Privilege Suspended or Revoked),
1543(b)(1.1)(iii) (Third Offense BAC .02 or Higher), 3802(a)(1) (DUI General
Impairment), 3802(c) (DUI Highest Rate), and 3809(a) (Driving with an Open
Container of Alcohol).
J-S04025-17
26, 2019).2 In light of the directive from our Supreme Court, we vacate the
trial court’s order denying Scott relief, and remand the matter to the trial court
for entry of an order dismissing all outstanding charges in this matter.
The underlying facts of Scott’s case are easily related.
On or about August 21, 2014, [Scott] was arrested by members
of the Philadelphia Police and subsequently charged with DUI and
related offenses, including driving with a suspended license in
violation of 75 Pa.C.S. [§] 1501([a]). In addition to charging
[Scott] with DUI and driving with a suspended license, the
arresting officers issued [Scott] a traffic ticket for operating his
vehicle without a license. On October 23, 2014, the Philadelphia
Municipal Court–Traffic Division held a trial on the traffic citation
and [Scott] was found guilty in absentia.
Trial Court Opinion, 3/29/2016 at 1-2.
After being found guilty in absentia, Scott filed a motion to dismiss all
other charges filed against him. Scott argued a second trial would violate 18
Pa.C.S. § 110 requiring compulsory joinder of all charges arising from the
same criminal episode, as well as violating both the Federal and Pennsylvania
Constitutional bans on double jeopardy. Both the trial court and a majority of
an en banc panel of our Court disagreed with Scott’s argument. However, our
Supreme Court in a divided decision, Commonwealth v. Perfetto, supra,
agreed that when the Philadelphia Municipal Court–Traffic Division adjudicates
a traffic citation that was included in pending charges for non-summary Motor
____________________________________________
2 Perfetto addresses procedural/statutory issues that arose in Philadelphia
upon the Philadelphia Municipal Court – Traffic Division adjudicating traffic
citations after serious problems came to light regarding the operation of the
constitutionally designated Philadelphia Traffic Court. Philadelphia Traffic
Court was eliminated by constitutional amendment effective April 26, 2016.
-2-
J-S04025-17
Vehicle Code violations, 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 prevents trial of the remaining
charges.
Here, Scott was tried and found guilty, in absentia, of the traffic citation
of driving without a license, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1501(a). All other charges, including
the most serious charge of DUI, were intended to be tried at a later date
before a Municipal Court judge. Pursuant to Perfetto, those charges must
now be dismissed upon application of 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, mandating all charges
arising from a single criminal episode be tried together.3 Accordingly, we now
vacate the trial court’s order of December 29, 2014, and remand this matter
to the trial court for entry of an order dismissing the remaining charges against
Scott. The remaining charges are: 75 Pa.C.S. 1543(a), 75 Pa.C.S. §
1543(b)(1.1)(iii), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a), 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(c), and 75 Pa.C.S.
§ 3809(a).
Order vacated. Case remanded for action consistent with this decision.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 11/19/19
____________________________________________
3Because the Perfetto decision rests on the interpretation of Section 110,
and we are directed to apply Perfetto by our Supreme Court, we need not
conduct a separate double jeopardy analysis.
-3-