J-S22008-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellant

v.

ELIJAH MALIK WHITE

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 1475 WDA 2023

Appeal from the Order Entered December 1, 2023

In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0001922-2021

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., LANE, J., and BENDER, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY PANELLA, P.J.E.: FILED: SEPTEMBER 20, 2024

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the Order of the 

Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas which granted the postsentence motion of Elijah Malik White. The Order also vacated White’s 

underlying convictions and judgment of sentence. The Order further reversed 

a prior order of court denying White’s motion to suppress evidence obtained 

pursuant to a search of his vehicle; lastly, the Order dismissed the charges 

against White. After careful review of the record, we vacate and remand for 

reinstatement of the original orders and for further proceedings consistent 

with this memorandum. 

This case arose out of a traffic stop and subsequent investigation of 

White’s vehicle on January 19, 2021. On February 9, 2021, a criminal 

complaint was filed against White charging him with one count of driving under 
J-S22008-24

- 2 -

the influence of a controlled substance (“DUI”), and three summary offenses, 

including obstructed lights not required, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304. Following a 

preliminary hearing all counts were held for court. 

On December 30, 2021, White filed a pretrial motion to suppress

evidence, requesting that all evidence seized, and all statements made by 

White, be suppressed as they were obtained unlawfully. A suppression hearing 

was held on May 23, 2022. Following the hearing, the court took the motion 

under advisement pending the submission of briefs by the parties. On

September 1, 2022, the court denied the motion to suppress. 

On May 26, 2023, the parties appeared for a non-jury trial. In lieu of 

live testimony, the parties stipulated to the case being decided on the 

suppression hearing transcript. The court found White guilty of DUI, and not 

guilty of the summary offenses. 

On June 27, 2023, the court sentenced White to 6 months’ probation 

with restrictive DUI conditions and 30 days Electronic Home Monitoring, and 

ordered White to pay restitution, fines, costs, and fees. White was also

subjected to a license suspension to be imposed by Penn DOT. The sentence 

was stayed pursuant to a defense request. 

On July 4, 2023, White filed a timely post-sentence motion requesting 

that the verdict be set aside, alleging (1) his performance on the standardized 

field sobriety tests did not justify his arrest and a further search of his blood; 

(2) he was not subjected to any investigation by a drug cognition expert; (3) 
J-S22008-24

- 3 -

the police did not obtain a search warrant for his blood and there was no

exception to the search warrant requirement; (4) the Commonwealth failed 

to prove he was incapable of safe driving; and (5) the court issued inconsistent 

rulings by first finding White operated his motor vehicle without its required 

headlamps being engaged, which served as the sole basis for the DUI 

investigation, but later finding White not guilty of the summary violation of 

operating the motor vehicle without lights at his non-jury trial.

The court originally scheduled a hearing on the post-sentence motion 

for September 7, 2023, but subsequently continued the hearing to September 

20, 2023. On September 20, 2023, the court filed an order granting a defense 

request for a 30-day extension and requesting submissions by both the 

Commonwealth and the defense by November 13, 2023. The record is devoid 

of any information regarding a post-sentence hearing or any submissions by 

either party. The trial court states in its 1925 opinion that neither party elected 

to submit briefs. See Trial Court Opinion, 1/30/24, at 3. 

On December 1, 2023, the trial court entered an order granting the postsentence motion, vacating the June 27, 2023 judgment of sentence, reversing 

the order denying suppression, and dismissing all charges. Relevantly, the 

court did not address the first four issues raised in the post-sentence motion. 

Rather, the court supported its decision based somewhat on the fifth issue as 

follows: 

[U]pon a thorough review of the record, the court finds that 

[White] was charged with 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304 (obstructed lights 
J-S22008-24

- 4 -

not required), as opposed to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4302 (periods for 

requiring lighted lamps). Despite the court's previous 

determination that the trooper possessed sufficient probable 

cause to initiate a traffic stop of [White]’s vehicle for failure to 

utilize his headlights during the time necessitated by statute, the 

court finds that this offense was not actually charged in the 

criminal information. As the Commonwealth has failed to establish 

sufficient probable cause of a violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4304 or 

any other charged offense to justify the initiate traffic stop, the

court is constrained to reverse its previous ruling denying 

[White]’s suppression motion.

Opinion and Order of Court, 12/1/23, at 1 (footnote and unnecessary 

capitalization omitted). In response, the Commonwealth filed the instant 

timely appeal. 

Following the Commonwealth’s submission of its 1925(b) concise 

statement, the trial court, by way of a January 30, 2024 letter to the 

Prothonotary of Superior Court of Pennsylvania, sought to withdraw its order

granting White’s post-sentence motion, and asked the Prothonotary to remand 

the matter to the trial court in order for it to correct its error and address the 

merits of the post-sentence motion. The court later filed a 1925(a) opinion 

further addressing the error and request for remand. 

Preliminarily, White contends the Commonwealth may not appeal from 

the challenged post-verdict order that changed the verdict of guilty to not 

guilty due to double jeopardy concerns. We find, however, that the

Commonwealth may properly appeal from the challenged post-verdict order 

since an appellate reversal of that order would result only in the reinstatement 

of the original verdicts and would not intrude upon White’s double jeopardy 
J-S22008-24

- 5 -

rights. Such a determination involves a question of law; thus, “our scope of 

review is plenary and our standard of review is de novo.” Commonwealth v. 

Baldwin, 158 A.3d 1287, 1292 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).

The Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the States 

through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that no person shall 

‘be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life 

or limb.’ “Under the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States 

and Pennsylvania Constitutions, as well as under the Pennsylvania 

Crimes Code, a second prosecution for the same offense after 

acquittal is prohibited.” 

...

Accordingly, “[w]hen a successful post[-]acquittal appeal by 

the prosecution would lead to proceedings that violate the Double 

Jeopardy Clause, the appeal itself has no purpose” and is 

prohibited.

However, the United States Supreme Court has made a 

distinction, for double jeopardy purposes, between an appeal from 

a judgment of acquittal and an appeal from “a post[-]verdict ruling 

of law by a trial judge.” Unlike an appeal from a judgment of 

acquittal, correcting an error of law post-verdict does not “grant 

the prosecutor a new trial or subject the defendant to the 

harassment traditionally associated with multiple prosecutions.”

Accordingly, “when a judge rules in favor of the defendant after a 

verdict of guilty has been entered by the trier of fact, the 

[g]overnment may appeal from that ruling without running afoul 

of the Double Jeopardy Clause.”

Commonwealth v. Wilson, 227 A.3d 928, 936 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citations 

and quotation marks omitted). 

Here, the trial court entered a verdict of guilty. Post-sentencing, the trial 

court, on its own, decided to vacate the verdict and dismiss the charges. In 

Commonwealth v. Parker, 451 A.2d 767 (Pa. Super. 1982), the trial court 

entered a guilty verdict following a bench trial. The defendant did not file a 
J-S22008-24

- 6 -

post-verdict motion, but the trial court sua sponte entered an order changing 

the verdict to not guilty. See id. at 770. In such a situation, “[t]he challenged 

order is not truly a verdict of acquittal, but an order purporting to change 

already recorded and docketed verdicts of guilty, entered by a previous order, 

to verdicts of not guilty.” Id. Because this Court was only reviewing the 

procedural propriety of the subsequent order, and vacation of the challenged 

order would result in a reinstatement of the original guilty verdict, this Court 

concluded that the Commonwealth's appeal was not barred by double 

jeopardy. Id. 

Similarly, here, the challenged order is not truly a verdict of acquittal, 

but an order purporting to change an already recorded and docketed verdict

of guilty, entered by a previous order, to a verdict of not guilty. Since we limit 

our review only to the procedural propriety of the subsequent order it is clear 

White will not be twice placed in jeopardy by our review. Vacation of the 

challenged order necessarily has the effect of reinstating the original verdict

of guilty. See United States v. Kopp, 429 U.S. 121 (1976) (government 

could properly appeal from an order dismissing an indictment which was

entered after the defendant was found guilty in a non-jury trial but prior to 

sentencing). Therefore, we find the Commonwealth’s appeal is properly before 

this Court.

We therefore address the Commonwealth’s claim on appeal that the 

court erred in reversing its earlier suppression decision. In response to the 
J-S22008-24

- 7 -

Commonwealth’s appeal, the trial court has agreed that it erred and requests 

that this Court remand the case so the original orders may be reinstated. In 

doing so, the court acknowledged that it erred by granting White’s postsentence motion “on a technicality” and reversing/vacating its previous 

rulings−namely White’s conviction, judgment of sentence and order denying 

the pretrial motion to suppress. Correspondence to Prothonotary, 1/20/24 

(“Under the circumstances, the [c]ourt determines that suppression of 

evidence and dismissal of the relevant charge(s) was not an appropriate 

remedy.”). 

We agree that the court’s justification for its December 1, 2023 order, 

based on a finding that White was not charged with an offense that established 

probable cause for the stop of White’s vehicle, was erroneous. 

“Once probable cause is established, it does not dissipate simply 

because the suspect is not charged with the particular crime which led to the 

finding of probable cause.” Commonwealth v. Canning, 587 A.2d 330, 332 

(Pa. Super. 1991). Accordingly, and despite any confusion that may have 

occurred at the suppression hearing, it is of no moment that the 

Commonwealth did not ultimately charge White with a violation of Section 

4302. The trial court found the Commonwealth possessed sufficient probable 

cause to conduct a traffic stop of White’s vehicle based on him not using his 

headlights. That finding remains proper and binding regardless of with which 

offenses the Commonwealth ultimately charged White.
J-S22008-24

- 8 -

Accordingly, the initial rulings entered September 1, 2022, May 26, 

2023, and June 27, 2023 were procedurally appropriate and should not have 

been reversed or vacated by the trial court. We therefore vacate the order 

appealed from and remand the case to the trial court to reinstate the original 

orders entered September 1, 2022, May 26, 2023, and June 27, 2023. Upon 

remand, the trial court is to consider the remaining arguments raised in the 

post-sentence motion which were not previously addressed by the trial court 

and enter an appropriate order within 30 days of the date of this 

Memorandum. 

Order vacated. Case remanded with instructions consistent with this 

decision. Jurisdiction relinquished.

DATE: 9/20/2024