J - S24016 - 15

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee
v. FREDRICK A. POSTIE, Appellant No. 2442 EDA 2014

Appeal from the Order entered July 15 , 2014, in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County, Criminal Division, at No(s): CP - 13 - CR - 0000340 - 2012

and CP - 13 - CR - 0000343 - 2012 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., ALLEN, and MUSMANNO, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY ALLEN, J.: FILED APRIL 13, 2015 Fredrick A. Postie (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the order denying and dismissing his “Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Section 110 of the Crimes Code.” We affirm. The trial court s ummarized the factual and procedural background as follows: The pertinent facts in these two companion cases and the relevant case in Schuylkill County are neither lengthy nor complex. In later February of 2012, Police Officer Lori Lienhard, of the Summi t Hill Police Department, interviewed [Appellant] as it related to various burglaries that occurred in Carbon and Schuylkill Counties. After admitting his involvement in these burglaries, a plethora of charges were filed against [Appellant] in both counti es. More specifically, the Schuylkill County District Attorney’s Office charged [Appellant] with: two counts of criminal conspiracy, four counts of burglary, eight counts of criminal trespass, four counts of theft by unlawful taking or disposition,J - S24016 - 15

- 2 -

four counts of receiving stolen property, four counts of criminal mischief, and three counts of loitering and prowling at night time, for the alleged burglaries that occurred at 268 East Main Street, Rush Township, 714 and 716 Claremont Avenue, Rush Township, a nd 474 Fairview Street, Rush Township, respectively. Moreover, the Schuylkill County District Attorney’s Office contended that these burglaries occurred sometime between December 12, 2011 and January 22, 2012. Around the same time, the Carbon County Dist rict Attorney’s Office filed similar charges against [Appellant], namely, criminal conspiracy, burglary, theft by unlawful taking, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass. As alleged in the information to the case indexed 340 C R 2012, [Appellant] committed these various offenses at two residences located at 211 Yard Street, Nesquehoning, Carbon County, sometime between November 17, 2011 and December 3, 2011. Pursuant to the case identified as 343 CR 2012, the Commonwealth has a lleged that during the time period of November 30, 2011 through December 21, 2011, [Appellant] committed the offenses listed above at the residences located at: 99, 100, 116, and 495 West White Bear Drive, with all four residences located in the borough o f Summit Hill, Carbon County. Thereafter, [Appellant] stood trial for the charges in Schuylkill County where, by a jury of his peers, he was convicted on twenty - five of twenty
- nine counts. Subsequent to that trial, [Appellant] filed the instant compulsor y joinder motion here in Carbon County. In the motion, [Appellant] argues that based upon his convictions in Schuylkill County on similar charges, the Carbon County District Attorney is barred from prosecuting him for alleged offenses that might have happ ened in Carbon County. After holding a hearing on the motion, [the trial court] by Court Order dated July 15, 2014, denied [Appellant’s] compulsory joinder motion, [from] which [Appellant] appealed []. [Although the trial court authored an opinion for su bmission to the Superior Court, it did not order Appellant to comply with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).] Trial Court Opinion, 9/11/14, at 2 - 4 (footnotes referencing the applicable statutes omi t ted).J - S24016 - 15

- 3 -

Appellant presents a single question for our review: Did the Tria l Court err in denying dismissal where the same witnesses and testimony, same evidence, and same investigation by the same officers that were used to produce a conviction in Schuylkill County and will be used in Carbon County at trial creates a Collateral Estoppel issue therefore barring the instant trial where the Commonwealth should have moved for joinder? Appellant’s Brief at 4. We initially recognize that this interlocutory appeal is properly before us because “an order denying a pretrial motion to dis miss on the grounds of double jeopardy/collateral estoppel is a final, appealable order.” See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Winter, 471 A.2d 827, 828 n.1 (Pa. Super. 1984) (citations omitted). Our standard of review of issues concerning [18 Pa.C.S.A. §] 110 is plenary. Commonwealth v. Reid , 35 A.3d 773, 776 (Pa. Super. 2012). We thus consider Appellant’s assertion that “the instant case is nearly an exact copy of the prior case, [and] the issues have previously and fully been litigated, barring the current pros ecution.” Appellant’s Brief at 9. Appellant maintains that “the factors in [18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110] ... have been met and ultimately this case is violating [Appellant’s constitutional] rights against double jeopardy.” Id . The Commonwealth counters that the trial court “properly found that [Appellant] failed to meet all of the criteria necessary under the Compulsory Joinder Rule, and therefore, failed to show that the prosecution currentlyJ - S24016 - 15

- 4 -

pending in Carbon County is barred. ” Commonwealth Brief at 2. Upon review, we agree with the Commonwealth. With regard to compulsory joinder, the Crimes Code specifies: § 110. When prosecution barred by former prosecution for different offense Although a prosecution is for a violation of a different provision of the statutes than a former prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances: (1) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined i n section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution is for: (i) any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on the first prosecution; (ii) any offen se based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, if such offense was known to the appropriate prosecuting officer at the time of the commencement of the first trial and occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecu tion unless the court ordered a separate trial of the charge of such offense; or (iii) the same conduct, unless: (A) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each requ ires proof of a fact not required by the other and the law defining each of such offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) the second offense was not consummated when the former trial began.J - S24016 - 15

- 5 -

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110(1). In Commonwealth v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66, 72 (Pa. 2008), our Supreme Court explained: As has been summarized by our Court, Section 110(1)(ii), which is the focus in this appeal, contains four requirements which, if met, preclude a subsequent prosecution due to a former prosecution for a different offense: (1) the former prosecution must have resulted in an acquittal or conviction; (2) the current prosecution is based upon the same criminal conduct or arose from the same criminal episode as the former prose cution; (3) the prosecutor was aware of the instant charges before the commencement of the trial on the former charges; and (4) the current offense occurred within the same judicial district as the former prosecution. See Nolan, 579 Pa. at 308, 855 A .2d at 839; Commonwealth v. Hockenbury, 549 Pa. 527, 533, 701 A.2d 1334, 1337 (1997) . Each prong of this test must be met for compulsory joinder to apply. Fithian, 961 A.2d at 72 (underline added for emphasis). In the instant case, the Commonwealth co nceded that the first and third prongs articulated in 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110 and Fithian had been met. Upon review, we find that the Honorable Joseph J. Matika, sitting as the trialJ - S24016 - 15

- 6 -

court, has provided a thoughtful analysis, concluding that the second and fou rth prongs (whether Appellant’s offenses arose from the same criminal episode and in the same judicial district as the former prosecution) were not met. In explaining his conclusion, Judge Matika has authored a comprehensive and well - reasoned opinion in w hich he artfully applies pertinent statutory and case law to the facts of record in this case, such that further commentary by this Court would be redundant. Accordingly, we adopt Judge Matika’s September 11, 2014 opinion as our own in disposing of this a ppeal. Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished. Case remanded for further proceedings. Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary
Date: 4/13/2015[FM - 46-141 l 1 A defendant is enti tl ed to an immediate interlocutory ap p eal as of ri ght from an order denying a non - frivolous motion to dis miss on do uble j eopardy grounds
. C o mmonwea l th v . Orie, 22 A
. 3d 1021 (Pa
. 20 11 ) ; see also, C ommonwealth v . Feaser, 723 A
. 2d 197 (Pa. Super
. Ct
. 1999 ) (Pretrial orders denying double jeopardy claims are immediatel y appealable in abs ence of written finding of fri v olousne s s b y th e hearing court. } Moreover , a claim rati onal e set fo rth i n th e July 15 , 20 1 4 o rder. 1 Respectively , Proce dure 1925 ( a) , · to expand upon the b ri ef holding and

i n accordance w i th Pennsylvan i a Rule of Appellate Court, Thi s memorandum op i nion is offere d to the Superio r dec i s i on. that order, and on the eve o f trial , appealed this Court's D efendant, subsequent to to Secti on 110 of the Cri mes Code." deny i ng and dismi · ssing Defendant's "Mo ti on to D i s miss Pursuant On July 15, 20 1 4, th i s Court issued an Order o f court Mati ka, J. - Sep tember 

## H , 2014 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro S e Fre derick A. Posti e Counsel for Commonwealth

. A ss istant: t7

!.L~ - C' .L. :: .Lc t Attorne y . Jean A. EngJ

_er. , Esquire

Defendant FREDERICK ANDREW POSTI E, No. CR 340-2012 No. C R 343-2012 vs. COMMONWEALTH O F PENNSYLVAN IA CRIMINAL DIVISION IN T H E COURT OF COMMON PLEAS O F CARB ON COUNTY, P ENN SY LVANIA ' Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM - 46-14] 2 5 1 8 Pa. C .S.A. § 392l ( a) . 4 F our of the counts of criminal trespass alleged that the Defendan t broke into a building or occupied structure, a violation o f 18 Pa . C.S.A . § 3503 (a) (J.) (ii). The other four counts of criminal trespass assert tha t the Defendant violated subsection (a) (l) (i } , that . being the De f endant entered and remained in the building or structure . 3 18 Pa . C . S.A . § 3502(a) . 2 18 Pa.C . S . A. § 903 (a } {J.). that the compulsory jo i nder statute prohibits a subsequent prosecu t ion of the defen d a nt impl ic a te s doub l e jeopardy princ i ples . S ee, Commonwealth v . Schmidt, 919 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2 0 07). dispositio n , 5 four counts of r ece iving s t o l en p r op er ty, 6 f our crimina l trespass, 4 fou r co u nts of th e ft by unlawful taking or crim i na l co n spiracy, 2 four counts of bu r g l ary, 3 eight counts of Atto r n e y's Off i c e cha r ged the Def e ndant with: two counts of D ist r ict County Schuy l k il l th e specifica ll y, Mo re the De fend a nt in both coun t i e s . in the se burg lar ies, a p l ethora of char ge s w er e fi le d a ga i nst Afte r admi t ting his inv o l vem e n t C ar bon a n d Sc h uy l ki ll Counties. Def e n d ant as it re la t e d to various b u rglaries -· ci ? at occ u rred in Li e nha r d, of the Summit H i ll Police Department, in t ervi e w e d th e

In l at e r Fe b ru a r y of 2012, Pol i ce Offic e r Lori complex. r el evant case in Schuylki l l County a re neither l e ngthy nor T h e perti ne nt f a cts in these two companion cas e s and th e



### FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND D efendant's appea l according l y. this Court r e comm e nds to t he Honorab le Superior Court to dismiss Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM-46-14J 3 6 18 Pa.C.S.A . 

### s 392S(a). 7 18 Pa.C.S.A . § 3304 (a) (S).
8 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

### s 5506.

9 18 Pa.C . S.A. § 3304 (~) (2) . West White Bear Drive, with all four residences located in listed above at the residences located at: 99, 100 , 116, and 495 through December 21, 2011, Defendant committed the offenses has alleged that during the time period of November 30, 2011 Pursuant to the case identi f ied as 343 CR 2012, the Commonwealth sometime between November 17, 201 1 and December 3, 2011 . County, and 134 Stock Street, Nesquehoning, Carbon County, residences located at 211 Yard Street, Nesquehoning, Carbon 

### ,· 1, 

## '
,. Defendant committed these various offenses at two 2012, As alleged in the information to case indexed 340 CR trespass. receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, 9 and criminal taking, theft by unlawful burglary, criminal conspiracy, Office filed similar charges against the Defendant, namely, Around the ~ame time, the Carbon County District Attorney's sometime between December 12, · 2011 and January 22, 2012 . Attorney's Office contended that these burglaries occurred County District Schuylkill the Moreover, respectively. Avenue, Rush Township, and 474 Fairview Street, Rush Township , at 268 East Main Street, Rush Township, 714 and 716 Claremont prowling at night time, 8 for the alleged burglaries that occurred counts of criminal mischief, 7 and three counts of loitering and Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[ F M-4 6 -141 4 See, 18 Pa.C.S.A. 

## s ll O{l ) { ii ) ; as the former prosecutio n . t r i a l; and 4) a l l charges were within t he same judicial district subsequent tria l was aware of the ch a rges before the first arose from the same criminal episode; 3) t he prosecuto r in the current prosecution wa s based upon the same crimi n al conduc t or prosecution .r e su l.t.ed in an acquitt a l or convi · c t ion; 2 ) the all of the fol l owi n g criteria are prese n t : 1) t he former the Pennsy l vania Crimes Code, bars a subsequent prosecution if T he compu l sory joinder ru l e , as set for t h in Sect i on 11 0 of 

### DISCUSSION motion, to which the Defend an t has a ppealed that order. Order da t ed Ju l y lS, 2014, denied De f end ant 's compulsory joinder After holding a he a ri n g on the motion, t his Court, by Cour t Ca r bo n County. prosecuting him f or a ll eged o f fenses t h a t might have happene d i n

C a rbo n . Cou n ty District A t t orney is barred from charges , that b a sed upon his conv ictions in Schuylkill County on simi l ar I n the motion, Defendan t argues motion here in Carbon County. that t rial, Defendan t fi l ed t he ins t ant compulsory j oinder Subsequent t o convicted on twent y - five o f twenty-n i ne coun t s . Schuylki l l Cou n ty where, by a jur y of his peers , he was T hereafter, Defendan t stood t rial for the charges in borough of Summit Hi l l, Carbon County . Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM - 46-1 4] 5 I n dec i din g t he lo g ical relat i onship prong 755, 761 (Pa . 1995). Commonwealth v . Bracalielly, 658 A. 2d defendant was cha r ged."

be tw ee n the v a rio u s off ens es with whi c h th e d iffer e nces be ma d e " b y mere l y ca t alogu i ng s i mp l e factua l similarities or of Rude have commented that such analysis of this pron g cannot whether they c ons ti tute the s a me '' e pisod e . " Subsequ e nt readin g s t empor a l relation s hip between the c r iminal a . cts to determine 177, 181

- 82 (Pa . 1983), the courts must examine the l ogi c al and t h e Pe n nsylv a nia Sup rem e Court in Commo nw ealth 

### v. Hude, 458 A . 2 d Commonwealth v. Nolan, 855 A. 2d 83 4 (Pa. 2004) . As dire c ted by a r ose from the same criminal conduct or episode. See, 

## .. 

# . p r ose cu tion t o t h e former t o det e rmi ne i f both pros ec utio n s labeled as the lo g ical relat i onshi p pro n g , compare s the present The second prong of t h e compulsory joi n der rule, also relate d off en se s . Attorn e y's Office from prosecut i ng the Defe n dant on these Pennsy. l vani a Crimes Code would forb.id th e Carbon County District If so , then S e ction 110 o f th e p rose c u t ion, were pres en t. episode and in the same j udicial d i strict as the former those being whether the o f f e nse arose f rom the s a me criminal f or the Cou rt was to d et ermi n e i f t he s e cond a nd fo u rth p ro ng s, prong s of this t e st are met; thus, the only consideration le f t case at bar, the Commonweal t h conc e des that the first and third I n the Commonwealt

h v . Hockenb ury, 7 0 1 A . 2d 1334 (Pa . 199 7 ). Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM-46-14] 6 January 1 3, 20 · 12. Sc huylkil l County occurri n g between December 12 , 201 1 and 21, 2011, whi l e the crimes Defe n dant was foun d gui l ty o f in Carbon County occurre d betw een November 17, 2011 an d December The al l eg e d c ri mes i n d ates these al le g ed crime s occurre d
. relate d as the two matters overlap eac h o ther in terms of the c o unty , th e C o u rt fi nd s th at th ~ tw o p rosecu tio n s are temporally betwee n the c harges i n th i s County and the charges in S c hu y lkill In exami n in g the "temporal" and "log i cal" re latio n ship 840 )
. A.3 d 7 7 3, 7 7 6 (P a . Super. C t . 2012) ( quoti n g Nolan, 855 A
. 2 d at Common w

ea l th v. Reid, 35 to sanction "vo Lume discoun tin g. " '" 180. "However , ' these policy co n cern s must not be interpreted Hud e, 458 A. 2d at as well as for j udicial economy purposes . tri al s for offe ns es ori gi n ating f rom th e s ame c riminal ep iso de , harassment resulting f rom being force d to un dergo s u cce s sive protect a · per s o n accu se d o f c r Lme s f rom "' .r. h ,;;, ~l')'.':/'F .: l: · >::"Ue:n t co n si d eri n g th e p olicy re aso n s of co mpu lsory jo i n der, namely to 

# l i I "single crimi n al ep isode" i n a s trict s ense espec i al l y when

Acc ordi ng l y , the courts should not c onstrue th e phrases substantial dup l i cati o n of issues of law and fac t. " Id . Rath er what is require d is a relationship between offenses. factual and legal issues is ins uf fi c ient to establis h a logical of the compul s ory j oi nder ru le, "mere de mi nimis dupli c ation of 

# J Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM-46-14] 7 vario u s properties, some b eing reside n ces and others unocc upied through mid

- January o f 20 1 2, the Defendant all egedly burglarized that of a single criminal episode. From mid

- November of 2011 mu l tiple episodes of the same criminal en terprise rather than The Court views Defendant's all eged conduct to be that of rested upon the credibility o f a single w i tness.) where different evidence was required as the Commonweal t:h's case facts between the two prosecu tion did not Lnvo Lve a situation [ for] each trial. "); see also Hud e, 458 A
. 2d at 183 (Th e l aw and different investigations, and different wi tnesses [] n e cessary three victi ms in three different counties requiring thre e h omicides occurred within a three-day period as "there were Section 110 o f th e compulsory joind er st atute where three Supreme Court ruled the s ub sequent action was not barred by Spatz, 756 A
. 2d 1139 , 1159 (Pa
. 2000) (Spa t z II) {Pennsylvani a See, Commonwealth v. di f ferent investig ations by the police
. the Loc at.Lon s of the alleged burglaries, and thu ...s - ~ ~ach required di f ferent from the victims in Schuylkill County, as are all of prosecution of the Defendant, the all eged victims are all I n this subsequent in Schuylkill County does not exist
. between the matters in Carbon County and the former prosecution matters; h owever, a substantial dup l ication of fact and l aw the two prosecutions, there is some duplication between the two Turning to the issue of the l ogical relationship between Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM- 46-14] 8 criminal episode." Nowhere did this Court make suc h a finding. that the two suppression motions are based upon a single which Defendant is referring to reads: "Defendant recognized prosecutions as a single criminal episode as th e sentence in is necessary to note that 

### it was Defendant who defined these two The Court finds it conclude the same for this current motion. derived from the same criminal episode, the Court must likewise that the prosecutions in Carbon and Schuylkill Counties are Defendant argued, since the Court concluded in the prior hearing order, the phrase "single criminal episoden appears and thus , as

Defendant points out that in footnote two of that motion
. Court addressed and disposed of Defendant ' s omnibus pre - trial to this Court's order dated September 9, 2013, in whic h the Defendant, in his motion and argument to the Court, cited 855 A
. 2d at 840. 

### Nolan, his own series with multiple episodes in each county." enterpri
. se . . . Such is the scenario here; Ide r endaar l starred in week is a separate episode-the series of episodes is an characters, producers, and continuity of storyline, but each each week's story has similar like a television sitcom,

As the 

### Nolan Court so cleverly stated, ' ' [m] uch scrap metal. contained copper, copper piping, copper wiring, or other various between these properties was that they were vacant and they The main commonality structures, within a certain locality. Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM - 46-14 ] 9 However, for judicial district as the former prosecution. all charges in these two prosecutions were within the same not inquire into the fourth prong of this test, that being that Consequently , this Court need compulsory j oinder are present. not all four criteria of charges in Schuylkill County , County have not arose from the same criminal episode as the As <;). re · s 1,1l t, of the Court f inding that the
. char qes in Carbon f

. • - · · • \ ' • • ~ originate from the same criminal episode. whether the prosecutions in Schuylkil l County and Carbon County prior to this order has this Court addressed the issue of At no point Lagana, 509 A. 2d at 866
. second prosecution. 11 motion of the previous prevailing party, become part of the suppression judge during the first prosecution can, upon the arise out of a single search and/or seizure, a decision by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that \\where two prosecutions the Court answered that issue in the affirmative as the Co zmnonwealth v

. Camperson, 650 A
. 2d 65 (Pa
. Super. Ct. 1 9 94 ) , and (Pa. 1986) 509 A. 2d 863 to Commonweal

th v . Lagana, In citing him at the first suppression hearing in Schuylkill
. have new evidence to present that was previously unavailable to Defendant's suppression motion, and if so, does the Defendant the ruling of Judge Domalakes in Schuylkill County to whether this Court, in Carbon County , must adopt and incorporate More importantly, the issue in the pre v ious hearing
. was Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[ FM-46 - 1 4] 1 0 Sect i on 5; this s e ctio n rea ds in r ele vant part that: '' [ t ] h e r e Pe nn sy l va ni a Co n stitut i on, a nd m ore spe ci fical l y A r t i cle V I n r ea chi n g its co n c l us i o n , the McPha il Court an aly zed t he lim i ts." I

d. P enn sy l va ni a an d is n ot ci rcum scrib ed by county ter r itoria l of Corrmonwea l t h sov ere i gn t he f r om f l ows ju r isdiction " [ t] he ir sub j ect m att er T h e ;re fore, 142 . •,". . Id. ·4tt power . " drug ca se s f r om ind ep end e nt sourc e s of pow er to t r y "co un ti e s are no t s epar at e so ve re i g ns an d d o not de riv e th eir Th e McPhai 1 Court r eason ed t h at Id
. at 14 4- 45
. proceedin g . a s ing le crim in a l epis o de , h ad t o b e tri e d i n a sing le t ran sact i o n s t h a t occur re d in t wo cou n ti e s, wh ich di d constitut e p l u ra lity de cision, held that Sect ion 1 1 0 · ma nd a te d t ha t drug A. 2d 139 {Pa. 1 997), t he Penn sy lva nia S up r e me Co u r t , i n a I n Commonwe al

th v . McPhail, 69 2 comp ulsory j cind er statut e . co nte xt th a t promp te d t he l e g is lat u r e t o am end t h e f o rmer ph ra se "judicial d i st r ict,n it is necessary to review th e To f ull y u nde rst and wha t t h e Ge ner a l A s semb l y me ant by t he 

### •· 1992)
. Se e, Comm on wea l

th v . Ri ghtley , 617 A.2d 1289 ( P a. Sup er. Ct . to al so add re ss th e compu l sory joi nd er statut e 's fourt h prong . r amif ica t ions if infri nge d upo n , th e Court f e e l s i t is ne ce ssary sever e which h av e p ri n cip le s je o p ardy do uble impli cat e s and sinc e D e fe n dant's a pp e a l pu rp ose s of be i ng thorough, Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM - 46-14] 11 10 The Fithian Court defined judicial district to mean "the geographical area established by the General Assembly in which a court of c ommon pleas is located." Fithian, 961.A,2d at 7 5. episode." Id . prosecution was brought, even though part of a single criminal boundaries of the judicial district in which the former

that occurred wholly outside of the geographic offenses from the reach of the compulsory joinder statute those current the Court held that 11 the General Assembly intended to preclude occurring in a single judicial district. Id. at 77 . 10 Moreover, s t at ut e was to limit mandatory j cinder 

### to only those offenses concluded that the legislative intent of the compulsory joinder Accordingly, the Fithian Court 76 . ( internal citation omitted) . Id. at the aame judicial district as the former prosecution . '" within the jurisdiction of a single court' with 'occurred within l egi , slo .t~r. e i n pc iX&: graph ( l } ( i i) s -..J.bs · tit.uted
. .the: phl: as ~ 'w as Specifically , the Section 110 (1) (ii) to its current language. the General Assembly amended Court's decision in McPhail, v. Fithian, 961 A.2d 66 (Pa . 2008), "[i]n direct response to our As stated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth as may otherwise be provided by law . " Id. at 141. having unlimited original jurisdiction in all cases e x cept shall be one court of common pleas for each judicial district . Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM - 46 - 14 ] 1 2 1 2 Similarly, the Schuylkill County District Attorney's Office charged the Defendant with certain crimes that were only associated to a particular property located in Schuylkill County. 1 : Although conceivably the charges of rece1v1ng stolen property could be asserted against the Defendant for property that was stolen in Schuy lkill County and Defendant received th e property within the carbon County boarder, or vise

- a - verse. However, the informati ons in both Carbon County cases and Schuylki ll county case do not charge such a scenario. Coun t y District Car b o n the fo r th by brought conspiracy Cou r t too had to co nsi d e r wh et h er the ch ar ges of criminal Ana l ogou s to t he ch ar ges be f o r e the Fithian Cour t , this m er it l e s s, fo r t he re asons sta t ed a b ov e . Off ice cha r ge d h im with, save for th e conspiracy cha r g e s, are t hat the c r imes t h at t he Carbo n C ounty D istric t A t to r n e y's Cons equ e ntly, D e f en dant's co nt ention th e n Schuylkill County . 12 occu r r e d in Carbon County, wh i ch is a sepa r a te judicial distric t a nd c r iminal t resp a ss coul d hav e only c r imi nal m is c hief, bu rg l a ry, th e ft by unlaw f u l taking, re c e ivin g s t ol e n p r ope r ty, 11 e n tir e ly in Ca r bo n Co unt y. Thu s , t h e e leme n ts f or th e crimes of s p e cifiG t o cer ta in pr o per ti es, prope rt ies t hat are l ocated Dist r ic t At to rn ey's O ff ic e charged th e Def e ndant with are all T he c r ime s t ha t the · carbon County being Sc h uy l ki l l County. d i s t r i c t i n which the f ormer prosecut i o n was brough t ," tha t "who l ly outsid e of the geogr a phic bou n daries o f the judicial cr iminal conspiracy charges, occ u rred i n Ca r bon Co u nty, and thus the r e ca n be no disput e t hat all t he cha r ges, excep t for the In e v al uati n g a l l th e charg e s in both Ca r bo n Coun t y cas e s, Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[PM-46-l.4] 13 or conspiracy, to burglarize specific houses located in both Defendant himself , testified that there was a g l obal agree m ent, witnesses, which inc l uded Defendant's co - conspirators and the In reading the transcript, none of the Schuylkill County. Defendant only offered the transcript from the trial in At the hearing before this Court on the instant motion, the prosecution.'" Id
. not occur 'within the same judicial district as the former offenses took place solely within [the former] county, they did As these offense occurred within the same judicial district. interpretation of Section 110 (1) (ii ) , focuses upon whether the our to pursuant analysis, proper "the that affirmed The Court Fithian, 961 A.2d at 79 . former prosecution. charges could have been brought against the defendant in the of the defendant for criminal conspiracy charges even though the In Fithian, the Court permitted the subsequent prosecution 1 · 963) ) • . at 78 (citing Commonwealth v. Thomas, 189 A.2d 255, 258 ( Pa. conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful combination." Id
. or in any county where an overt act was committed by any of the brought in any county where the unlawful combination was formed ,

"prosecution for criminal conspiracy may be Court stated, As the Fithian same judicial district as Schuylkill County . Attorney's Office were to be classified as occurring within the Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM-46 -1 4] 14 Accordingly, t his Court Of f ice f rom p r osecu t i n g the Defend a nt. s t atu t e does no t bar t he Carbon County Dis t r i ct Attorney's De f e n dan t ' s appeal be dismissed as the compu l sory joinder Based upon t he foregoing, this Cou r t respec tf ul l y asks that 

### CONCLUSION Schuy l kill County. same j udicial dis t ric t as the f ormer prosecu t ion , tha t being in this subsequent prosecution are charges that were within the De f endant was also unsuccessful in e st a b l ishi n g t hat the charges Sc huy lk il l and Ca r bo n Cou n ties are of t he same crimi n al e pisode, Accordi ngl y, in addition t o no t proving t ha t the charges in co n spiracy cha r ges broug ht forth by Schuylkill Coun t y . County or are not based upon the s a me conduc t as the crimi n a l Carbo n Cou nt y D istric t A t torney's Of f ice occurred w it hin Carbon t h e eleme n ts of the criminal conspiracy charges fi le d by the from

- t.he t rial in S c huy l kill Coun ty , this Court g l eaned that all Court at t he he a ring on his mo t ion other t h a n the tr an scrip t t he De f e n dant no t profferin g any additio n al evid e nce to this Thus, i n read i ng t h e tra n scrip t , and borders of Carbon County. ei t her the agreement · or any overt act occurred within the wi tn esses t esti f ied , whether exp l ici t ly or imp l ici t ly, that Schuy l kill County charges of criminal conspiracy, none of t h e Moreover, as it related to t he Carbon a n d Schuy l kil l Counties. Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM[FM - 46-14] 15 

## ·~-~ C,.!!; 

# ~@ ~ .. . ...

(/'.'> . - ~ rri C")Ai. ? - o

. . 0 ::t . o · ::}::: \. - } "" t : <"· , f:2 ("') 

## c : · ~ , ,. 11,r.::- · :

::;. ,.., ? ~ 

## ~ g ~ z :. .,- :~ . ti 

### rr. r · ~ : : 

# - , . . .... , / -< ~- < 

# . .

0 .l='" BY THE COURT:

~ 

### J-Oeph J. Matika, J . af firmed
. be compu l sory joinder motion, di smi s sing Defendant ' s 2014 respec tfu lly recommends that this Court's order dated Ju l y 15, , . Circulated 03/25/2015 01:39 PM