Court Opinion

ID: 9737199
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:18:44.33105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:57.186646
License: Public Domain

MONTEMURO, Judge,
concurring statement:
While I agree with the Majority’s ultimate resolution of appellant’s claim, I write separately to express my belief *588that because of the singular focus of this case on the interaction between juvenile and criminal courts in relation to double jeopardy, those prior cases which involve only the criminal system, viz., Commonwealth v. LaBelle, 397 Pa.Super. 179, 579 A.2d 1315 (1990) (en banc); Commonwealth v. Evers, 381 Pa.Super. 568, 554 A.2d 531 (1989), are in fact jurisdictionally and factually irrelevant. As the Act makes clear, delinquency specifically excludes summary offenses. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6302. Therefore, unlike the situation obtaining in the cited cases, joinder was understood to be an impossibility.