Court Opinion

ID: 9710197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:04:14.852825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:55.044955
License: Public Domain

NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I join Mr. Justice Cappas majority opinion since I agree that the instant prosecution is barred by the compulsory joinder provision of 18 Pa.C.S. § 110. However, I write separately to express my belief that this case is akin, both factually and legally, to Commonwealth v. Hockenbury, 549 Pa. 527, 701 A.2d 1334 (1997). As articulated by Mr. Justice *67Zappala’s dissenting opinion in Hockenbury, which I joined, I believe that the charges at issue there arose from the same criminal episode as the charges for which the defendant was previously convicted. Since I reach the same conclusion here, I join the majority opinion.
ZAPPALA, J., joins in this concurring opinion.