Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Johnson, holding that the double jeopardy protections provided to the citizens of Philadelphia by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Perfetto simply do not apply to felony charges. The Supreme Court previously held that police could not file separate traffic court cases and criminal charges when a traffic stop leads to an arrest for more serious charges. This wrongly-decided decision completely undermines the Supreme Court’s ruling and allows prosecutors to subject defendants to the expense, stress, and dual penalties associated with two separate prosecutions arising from the same incident.

Commonwealth v. Johnson

A Philadelphia police officer stopped the defendant for careless driving and discovered that he had been driving with a suspended license. The police removed the defendant from the vehicle, patted him down, and found some heroin. They arrested him and charged him with Possession with the Intent to Deliver (“PWID”) and knowing and intentional possession of a controlled substance (“K&I). They also cited him for driving on a suspended license.

Before the defendant went to trial on the PWID and K/I charges in the Court of Common Pleas, the defendant was found guilty of driving with a suspended license in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia. Consequently, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss his drug case under 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 110 (“Rule 110”), which provides double jeopardy protections to citizens of Pennsylvania. Specifically, the defendant argued that the Commonwealth should have tried the defendant for the driving with a suspended license charge and his PWID charge at the same time because they arose out of the same incident. Per the defendant, the failure to do this not only violated his rights under Rule 110, but also his right against Double Jeopardy under both the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions.

The trial court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The trial court opined that because Philadelphia has a separate traffic court, the traffic citation can be disposed of without violating a defendant’s Double Jeopardy rights. The defendant then filed an interlocutory appeal arguing that the trial court improperly denied his motion to dismiss. While his appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the case of Commonwealth v. Perfetto. Perfetto, which will be discussed in more detail, was factually similar to this case. Therefore, in his appeal, the defendant argued that Perfetto should control and the felony charges should be dismissed.

Is Philadelphia’s Court System Different from Other Court Systems in Pennsylvania?

Yes. A quick refresher on Philadelphia’s court system will be necessary to fully understand the Johnson decision. When a defendant is charged with a felony in Philadelphia, he or she will first usually have a preliminary hearing in Municipal Court. If the Municipal Court judge finds that the Commonwealth provided sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for the charges filed against the defendant, then the case will be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas for further proceedings including trial. The defendant cannot have his felony cases heard in the Philadelphia Municipal Court (unless it is a first offense marijuana PWID). The defendant also cannot plead to a felony, with the exception of the aforementioned crime, in Municipal Court.

If a defendant is only charged with misdemeanors or summaries, including traffic citations, then the defendant will not receive a preliminary hearing. Instead, the case will go straight to trial before a Municipal Court judge. It is difficult for the defendant to demand a jury at this stage, and there are no jury trials in the Municipal Court. If the defendant is found guilty of any of the charges filed against him or her, the defendant then has the right to a de novo appeal in the Court of Common Pleas. If the defendant chooses to de novo appeal his case, the defendant will get a new trial on the remaining charges. If the defendant wants to, he can also elect to have a jury trial once the case reaches the Common Pleas level. Most defendants do not appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, but this system often benefits the defense because the Commonwealth actually has to convict a defendant twice in order to obtain a final conviction.

What happened in Commonwealth v. Perfetto?

For a more detailed analysis, please refer to our previous blog about Commonwealth v. Perfetto. For purposes of this blog, only a brief summary of the decision will be given. Commonwealth v. Perfetto is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court that was decided earlier this year. This case was significant because it held that if a defendant is charged with both a criminal case and a traffic case (and the defendant is acquitted or found guilty of his traffic case before his criminal case was resolved), then Rule 110 would prohibit the subsequent prosecution of the criminal case because of Double Jeopardy. This case is very significant because so many defendants were given a traffic citation after they were arrested for their underlying criminal case.

Because of Perfetto, defendants used Rule 110 to dismiss not only misdemeanor cases, but felony cases too. It is important to note that the facts of Perfetto only involved a Municipal Court case (i.e. a case that has a maximum penalty of five years or less). Perfetto did not involve a felony case and its holding also did not explicitly address whether it applied to felony cases. More specifically, Perfetto did not address whether 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 112 (hereinafter “Rule 112”) was applicable. As discussed later, this would prove to be decisive for the Superior Court.

What is Rule 112?

Rule 112 states that a subsequent prosecution is not barred by a former prosecution if the former prosecution was before a court which lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense. In its appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the defendant’s motion should not be granted on the PWID charge because the Municipal Court could not hear the defendant’s case because the charge has a maximum penalty of more than five years. In its brief, the Commonwealth conceded that the K/I charge should have been dismissed because the Municipal Court did have jurisdiction to hear that particular charge.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the K/I charge was properly dismissed, but the defendant must face trial for the PWID charge. The Superior Court opined that a defendant cannot obtain Double Jeopardy relief for his felony case when his traffic case is resolved. The reason is because of Rule 112. Specifically, because a defendant cannot have a trial for a felony charge in Municipal Court (unless it is a marijuana PWID as previously discussed), Rule 112 is implicated. Therefore, because Rule 112 is implicated, the defendant’s Double Jeopardy rights were not implicated when a defendant resolves his traffic court case. As such, for now, the defendant will have to face trial on his remaining PWID charge. This case is likely to receive review by an en banc of the Superior Court and/or the Supreme Court.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Possession with the Intent to Deliver, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

PA Superior Court Reduces Double Jeopardy Protections in Philadelphia Felony Cases