Court Opinion

ID: 9945323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 18:10:45.077761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:26.477165
License: Public Domain

J-S27016-23

 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA             :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                          :
              v.                          :
                                          :
                                          :
 GREGORY SEWELL                           :
                                          :
                    Appellant             :   No. 1497 MDA 2022

             Appeal from the Order Dated September 26, 2022
  In the Court of Common Pleas of York County Criminal Division at No(s):
                         CP-67-CR-0004395-2021

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:                 FILED: FEBRUARY 27, 2024

      Gregory Sewell appeals from the order that denied his motion to dismiss

based upon double jeopardy pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 110. We affirm.

      On April 2, 2021, a vehicle operated by Sandra Ramirez was struck by

a driver who left the scene without exchanging information or rendering aid.

In investigating Ms. Ramirez’s emergency call, Hanover Police Officer

Zachariah Lloyd identified Appellant, who had a suspended license, as the

driver of the other vehicle and obtained his insurance policy information.

Officer Lloyd then discovered that on June 15, 2021, Appellant informed his

insurance adjuster in a recorded call that Appellant had been the victim of the

hit-and-run by a speeding police vehicle and that he had waited at the scene

for more than half an hour after calling the police, who never arrived.
J-S27016-23

       The Commonwealth initiated the instant case on August 10, 2021,

charging Appellant with insurance fraud pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 4117(2).1

By complaint filed September 29, 2021, at CP-67-CR-4501-2021, the

Commonwealth charged Appellant with accidents involving death or personal

injury, duty to give information and render aid, duties at stop sign, drivers

required to be licensed, and unlawful activities. The latter case terminated

when Appellant pled guilty on August 25, 2022, to driving while his operating

privilege was suspended.

       Appellant thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the instant case on double

jeopardy grounds, asserting that the insurance fraud prosecution arose from

the same criminal episode as the one that culminated in his guilty plea such

that it was subject to the compulsory joinder statute codified at 18 Pa.C.S.

§ 110. After a hearing, the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss on

September 26, 2022. This timely appeal followed.2 Appellant complied with

____________________________________________

1 That statute makes it an offense if one:

       Knowingly and with the intent to defraud any insurer or self-
       insured, presents or causes to be presented to any insurer or self-
       insured any statement forming a part of, or in support of, a claim
       that contains any false, incomplete or misleading information
       concerning any fact or thing material to the claim.

18 Pa.C.S. § 4117(2).

2 Since the trial court made no finding that Appellant’s double jeopardy motion

was frivolous, its order denying the motion was an immediately-appealable
collateral order. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Santiago, 270 A.3d 512, 516
n.2 (Pa.Super. 2022).

                                           -2-
J-S27016-23

the trial court’s order to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and the court then

submitted an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

        In this Court, Appellant’s counsel filed a petition to withdraw and a brief

in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and

Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). While we were not

convinced at that point that Appellant’s double jeopardy motion warranted

relief, we concluded that the appeal was not so obviously lacking in merit that

the appeal could be classified as wholly frivolous.        Therefore, we denied

counsel’s petition and ordered the parties to file new briefs. With those now

before us, we are prepared to adjudicate this appeal.

        Appellant presents the following question for our review: “Is the instant

prosecution subject to dismissal under the applicable version of 18 Pa.C.S.

§ 110 where it grew out of and was based primarily on another prosecution

that [Appellant] has already resolved through a guilty plea?” Appellant’s brief

at 4.

        We begin with a review of the pertinent legal principles. “The question

of whether a defendant’s constitutional right against double jeopardy would

be infringed by a successive prosecution is a question of law. When presented

with a question of pure law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope

of review is plenary.”     Commonwealth v. Gross, 232 A.3d 819, 834-35

(Pa.Super. 2020) (en banc) (cleaned up).

                                        -3-
J-S27016-23

       Whether a subsequent prosecution is barred by a former one involving

different offenses is governed by § 110. As amended in 2022, that statute

provides in relevant part as follows:

       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 in [§] 109 of this title (relating to when
          prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense)
          and the subsequent prosecution is for:

              ....

              (ii) any offense 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 prosecution unless the
              court ordered a separate trial of the charge of such offense
              or the offense of which the defendant was formerly
              convicted or acquitted was a summary offense or a
              summary traffic offense[.]

18 Pa.C.S. § 110.3

____________________________________________

3 A prior version of § 110 was in effect at the time (1) Appellant allegedly
committed all of the acts at issue, (2) both prosecutions were commenced,
and (3) Appellant pled guilty to the summary offense in the other prosecution.
That version did not include the phrase “or the offense of which the defendant
was formerly convicted or acquitted was a summary offense or a summary
traffic offense” within § 110(1)(ii). See 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 (effective August
27, 2002, to July 10, 2022).

Since the other prosecution resulted in a conviction for a summary offense,
prosecution of this action plainly would not violate the version of the rule in
effect at the time the court ruled on his double jeopardy motion. Appellant
(Footnote Continued Next Page)

                                           -4-
J-S27016-23

       The focus of this appeal is upon whether the instant prosecution arose

from the same criminal episode as the one that resulted in Appellant’s guilty

plea. In this vein, we have explained that “a criminal episode is an occurrence

or connected series of occurrences and developments which may be viewed

as distinctive and apart although part of a larger or more comprehensive

series.”   Commonwealth v. Jefferson, 220 A.3d 1096, 1100 (Pa.Super.

2019) (cleaned up). We have expounded on the aspects of a single criminal

episode in another context as follows:

       [To ascertain] whether a number of statutory offenses are
       logically related to one another, the court should initially inquire
       as to whether there is a substantial duplication of factual, and/or
       legal issues presented by the offenses. The mere fact that the
       additional statutory offenses involve additional issues of law or
       fact is not sufficient to create a separate criminal episode since
       the logical relationship test does not require an absolute identity
       of factual backgrounds.

             The temporal relationship between criminal acts will be a
       factor which frequently determines whether the acts are logically
       related. However, the definition of a single criminal episode
       should not be limited to acts which are immediately connected in
       time.    Transaction is a word of flexible meaning.      It may
       comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending not so
       much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon their
       logical relationship.

____________________________________________

contends that the version of the rule in effect when he entered his guilty plea
in the first prosecution governs the resolution of this claim because the
amendment, which excepted summary offenses, impaired his constitutional
right to be free from a successive prosecution. See Appellant’s reply brief at
3-4. As the trial court reached the same result through application of the old
rule as mandated by the amended rule, we shall assume for the sake of
argument that the version which was in effect at the time the first prosecution
terminated governs our analysis.

                                           -5-
J-S27016-23

Commonwealth v. Witmayer, 144 A.3d 939, 946-47 (Pa.Super. 2016)

(cleaned up).

      This Court has observed that “a mere de minimis duplication of factual

and legal issues is insufficient to establish a logical relationship between

offenses. Rather what is required is a substantial duplication of issues of law

and fact.” Commonwealth v. Schmidt, 919 A.2d 241, 247 (Pa.Super. 2007)

(cleaned up). Yet, “[t]wo separate offenses may constitute the same criminal

episode if one offense is a necessary step toward the accomplishment of a

given criminal objective or if additional offenses occur because of an attempt

to secure the benefit of a previous offense or conceal its commission.”

Commonwealth v. Perillo, 626 A.2d 163, 166 (Pa.Super. 1993).

      Here, the trial court explained its reasons for rejecting Appellant’s claims

as follows:

             In looking at the temporal sequence of events, the incidents
      and complaint dates are not the same. In the first case, the
      incident date is listed as April 2, 2021. This second case before
      this court has an incident date of June 15, 2021. That means a
      total of seventy-four days, almost two and a half months, elapsed
      between the two incidents. . . . Therefore, the temporal sequence
      leans towards two separate incidents and not one criminal
      episode.

             The logical relationship between the two cases does overlap.
      As the District Attorney’s Office was investigating the first case,
      that investigation led to the charges in the second case. As the
      first case involved charges surrounding a hit-and-run, the District
      Attorney’s Office investigated the accident further and discovered
      that [Appellant] allegedly lied on a recorded phone call to his
      insurance adjuster. Although the second event of the alleged
      fraud stems from the initial hit-and-run incident, that simply
      creates a “de minimis” connection.

                                      -6-
J-S27016-23

            While there are some common issues of fact, there are no
     common issues of law. [Appellant] pled guilty to a summary
     charge of driving while operating privilege is suspended in the first
     case on August 25, 2022, while the current case is graded as a
     felony. . . . To prove its case for false/fraudulent insurance
     claim, the Commonwealth needs to show that [Appellant]
     “knowingly and with the intent to defraud any insurer” filed “a
     claim that contains any false, incomplete or misleading
     information concerning any fact or thing material to the claim.”
     There is no overlap in the elements of the law because the first
     case [Appellant] pled guilty to driving a motor vehicle while his
     license was suspended, revoked, or cancelled and before those
     driving rights were restored. These factors also lead the court to
     find the incidents were not one criminal episode.

     . . . In this case, the Commonwealth stated the second case has
     a different affiant, David Jay of the District Attorney’s Office, than
     it had for the first case. The victims are different in each case
     because the first victim would be the person in the other vehicle
     and then the insurance company would be the victim for this
     second case. A key witness for the second case would be the
     insurance adjuster, who would likely not have been a key witness
     for the first case. . . .

            In analyzing the totality of the circumstances in this case,
     this court finds that there were two separate criminal episodes.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/4/23, at 4-6 (cleaned up).

     Appellant argues that the prosecution for insurance fraud is part of the

same criminal episode as the charge to which he had already pled guilty

because it “grew out of—and could not have been brought but for—the conduct

charged in the prior case.”    Appellant’s brief at 18.    He asserts that this

prosecution would involve a substantial duplication of issues since “the

foundation of the insurance fraud charge was that [Appellant] was responsible

for a hit-and-run incident, i.e., he committed the acts alleged in the other

prosecution and yet told the insurance company otherwise.”           Id. at 19.

                                     -7-
J-S27016-23

Although Appellant acknowledges that the insurance fraud claim obviously

would require additional factual and legal matters, he maintains that the

logical connection between the cases, and the fact that the Commonwealth

would essentially have to re-prove the first case in order to prove the instant

case makes the overlap substantial rather than de minimis.       Id. at 21-22

(citing Perillo, supra at 166).

      We agree with Appellant that there is a logical connection between the

events that resulted in the prior conviction and this case, and the facts and

witnesses from the prior prosecution are likely to be repeated in this

prosecution.   However, as the Commonwealth aptly observes, the crimes

themselves, namely driving under suspension and insurance fraud, have no

common elements or logical connection. See Commonwealth’s brief at 15.

Further, the cases have different victims, different affiants, and occurred in

different places on different days.   Id. at 15-16.   In short, the trial court

properly held that the relationship between Appellant’s hitting another vehicle

and driving away while his driver’s license was suspended on the one hand,

and his decision to call his insurance company months later and claim that

someone else damaged his vehicle on the other, was not so substantial that

they amounted to a single criminal episode.

      Accordingly, Appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court

erred in concluding that § 110 did not bar the instant prosecution. Therefore,

we affirm the order denying his motion to dismiss.

                                      -8-
J-S27016-23

     Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 2/27/2024

                           -9-