Court Opinion

ID: 9575514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:14:30.732744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:17.611284
License: Public Domain

Baker, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the finding of the majority that the record contains sufficient evidence to conclude as a matter of law that the trial court erred when it ruled that appellant had not met his burden to prove that the double jeopardy clause barred his prosecution for robbery. I further disagree with the majority’s finding that the record contains proof of conduct that “violates the dictates of Grady.”
As is stated by the majority, the defendant must prove the identity of the offenses and show that his case falls within the rule of Grady. Furthermore, where the trial court has made findings of fact, on appeal, we must view the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, granting to it all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom. I am of opinion that the majority has reversed that rule in its search for a reason to support its holding.
Appellant argues that the evidence presented in the general district court to obtain an assault and battery conviction was the same evidence that was used to convict him for robbery. However, he failed to provide the trial court or the Court of Appeals either with a transcript or statement of facts in lieu thereof to support his claim. Likewise, he did not have a witness testify in the trial court as to what evidence was produced in the district court. On the face of the charges, it is obvious that an additional fact, the *54taking of money or things of value, is required to prove the robbery that is not necessary to prove the battery charge. We are left to speculate as to the meaning of the Commonwealth Attorney’s “thoughts” quoted by the majority to support the reversal.
My examination of the record in this case discloses that, viewed in its totality, it sufficiently supports the judgment of the trial court, and further fails to disclose that appellant met his burden to bring his plea within either the Blockburger or Grady tests.
Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.