Commonwealth v. Collins
Citation | 258 A.3d 520 (Table) |
Decision Date | 11 June 2021 |
Docket Number | No. 1157 WDA 2020,1157 WDA 2020 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Aaron L. COLLINS, Appellant |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Appellant, Aaron L. Collins, appeals from the October 5, 2020 order denying his motion for dismissal pursuant to the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. After review, we affirm.
The trial court set forth the following factual and procedural recitation:
Order, 10/5/20, at 1-2. The jury handed down the verdict on January 8, 2020. The trial court declared a hung jury as to counts four and six, Indecent Assault Forcible Compulsion and Sexual Assault, respectively, and dismissed the other charges. Orders, 1/9/20. Appellant filed a Motion for Dismissal Pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment on February 25, 2020. The trial court denied the motion on October 5, 2020. Appellant filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 313 on October 26, 2020. The trial court ordered Appellant to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of errors complained of on appeal. Order, 10/27/20. Appellant timely filed his Rule 1925(b) concise statement on November 6, 2020.
On November 9, 2020, this Court ordered Appellant to show cause as to why the appeal satisfied the three-prong test set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 313(b) or why the appeal should not be quashed for failure to raise any other exception to the final order rule. Order, 11/9/2020 (per curiam ). Appellant responded on November 18, 2020. This Court discharged the rule and allowed the appeal to proceed, with the caveat that the parties should be prepared to address the issue should the panel have any concerns. Order, 11/20/20 (per curiam).
Appellant presents the following questions for our review:
Appellant's Brief at 3 (full capitalization omitted).
In his first issue, Appellant argues that his interlocutory appeal is specifically authorized by Pa.R.A.P. 313. Appellant's Brief at 7. That Rule and accompanying note state as follows:
Pa.R.A.P. 313 (emphasis added). Appellant argues that pursuant to the note accompanying Rule 313 and our Supreme Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Brady , 508 A.2d 286 (Pa. 1986), his appeal is proper. We agree.
"Pennsylvania law has traditionally provided a criminal defendant the right to an immediate appeal from an order denying a pretrial motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds." Commonwealth v. Gross , 232 A.3d 819, 830 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citing Commonwealth v. Orie , 22 A.3d 1021, 1024 (Pa. 2011) ). Indeed, we have repeatedly held that "[p]re-trial orders denying double jeopardy claims are immediately appealable in the absence of a written finding of frivolousness by the hearing court." Commonwealth v. Feaser , 723 A.2d 197, 199 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1999) (quotation omitted). In the instant case, the trial court did not make a finding of frivolousness in its order; thus, we may properly exercise jurisdiction over the appeal. Id . ("Because there has been no discrete finding of frivolousness by the trial court, we have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.")
In his second question, Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. Appellant's Brief at 11. Our standard of review is as follows:
Commonwealth v. Miller , 193 A.3d 1187, 1191 (Pa. Super. 2018).
Appellant advances two arguments in support of his appeal. First, he argues that it is unclear which counts of Indecent Assault Forcible Compulsion and Sexual Assault relate to which incident. Appellant's Brief at 15. Therefore, Appellant posits, it is unclear whether the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the counts related to the first or second incident. Id . Appellant then asserts that in order for the Commonwealth to prosecute him for counts four and six, the Commonwealth would have to retry the entire case, which is barred by double jeopardy. Id . Second, Appellant argues that his acquittal on both counts of IDSI Forcible Compulsion collaterally estops the Commonwealth from proceeding with the prosecution of Appellant for counts four, Indecent Assault Forcible Compulsion, and six, Sexual Assault. Id . at 15-16.
Preliminarily, we note that "[a]ny issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived." Commonwealth v. Castillo , 888 A.2d 775, 780 (Pa. 2005) (citing Commonwealth v. Lord , 719 A.2d 306, 309 (Pa. 1998) ). Appellant's concise statement included the following single issue:
1. Whether the [c]ourt erred when the [c]ourt failed to dismiss [Appellant's] charges pursuant to the Double Jeopardy Clause of Fifth Amendment; because the not guilty verdict in the previous trial in regards to counts one and two IDSI Forcible Compulsion; count three Indecent Assault Forcible Compulsion; and count five Sexual Assault precludes his retrial on count four Indecent Assault Forcible Compulsion; and count six Sexual Assault?
Concise Statement of Issues on Appeal, 11/6/20. Appellant did not raise the precise argument relating to which counts were associated with which incident of abuse in his Rule 1925(b) statement, and therefore, the trial court did not address the issue in its Statement in Lieu of Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Rather, therein, the trial court relied on its October 2020 order, as it reviewed Appellant's Rule 1925(b) Statement and found that the order "previously addressed all issues." Statement in Lieu of Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, 11/9/20.
It is well established that:
To continue reading
Request your trial