Terron Miller (Appellant) appeals from the order denying his pre-trial motion to dismiss charges based on double jeopardy. Upon review, we affirm.
The trial court detailed the factual and procedural background:
On or about April 6, 2017, the Altoona Police Department charged [Appellant] with various violations of the Controlled Substance Act. These charges occurred as a result of a statewide grand jury and subsequent grand jury presentment. Following a preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth filed a Criminal Information on July 24, 2017. The Criminal Information charged [Appellant] with one count of criminal conspiracy. The count of criminal conspiracy alleged that [Appellant] engaged in conduct which would constitute a crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit a crime. The allegations in the Criminal Conspiracy Complaint indicate that the conspiracy occurred between on or about January 1, 2015 through February 2, 2016 within Blair and York Counties. The Commonwealth also charged [Appellant] with one count of possession with intent to deliver/delivery of a controlled substance indicating that [Appellant] unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously possessed with intent to deliver a controlled substance between on or about January 1, 2015 through February 2. 2016. The Commonwealth also alleges a charge of dealing in proceeds of unlawful activity, utilizing the dates of between on or about January 1, 2015 through February 2, 2016 and two counts of corrupt organizations. The corrupt organization charges indicate the same relevant dates January 1, 2015 through February 2, 2016 but allege violations of different subsections of the corrupt organization statute. The Commonwealth also charged [Appellant] with an additional count of possession of drug paraphernalia as a misdemeanor offense but did not provide a specific date for that offense. The case proceeded through the pretrial stage. During the pretrial stage, [Appellant] filed an Omnibus Pretrial Motion for Relief on August 16, 2017. Relevant to this Opinion, [Appellant's] Omnibus Pretrial Motion included a Motion to Dismiss.
In [Appellant's] Motion to Dismiss, [Appellant] draws the Court's attention to numerous prior criminal actions previously addressed in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County. These matters were docketed at 2016 CR 1258, 1259, 1260, 1261, 1262 and 1461. In [Appellant's] Motion he indicates that the previous docket numbers evidenced charges of possession with intent to deliver for six (6) sales of heroin to a confidential informant which were alleged to have occurred on June 12, 2015 (2016 CR 1262), July 16, 2015 (2016 CR 1461), September 10, 2015 (2016 CR 1261), October 23, 2015 (2016 CR 1260), January 29, 2016 (2016 CR 1259) and February 2, 2016 (2016 CR 1258). The record establishes that [Appellant] entered guilty pleas in the aforementioned matters on November 21, 2016 and received a period of incarceration of 5 to 15 years. [Appellant's] guilty pleas were for a count of criminal conspiracy and a count of possession with intent to deliver at each of the aforementioned criminal action numbers. [Appellant] alleges that the current prosecution is based on the same conduct for which [Appellant] was previously prosecuted and that the current prosecution arises from the same criminal episode for which [Appellant] was previously prosecuted. [Appellant] further alleges that the prior prosecutions of [Appellant] took place in the same jurisdiction as the present prosecution and that the prosecuting officers were aware of the alleged acts which led to the present prosecution at the time of his guilty plea and sentencing on November 21, 2016. For these reasons, [Appellant] alleges that his charges should be barred by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 109 and § 110 and Article 1 § 10 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
As a result of the filing of [Appellant's] Pretrial Motion, the [trial court] conducted a hearing on the Omnibus Pretrial Motion on November 28, 2017. Following the November 28, 2017 hearing, the [c]ourt issued Orders on November 28, 2017 and November 30, 2017. These Orders indicated that the Commonwealth and the [Appellant] agreed to incorporate the Affidavits of Probable Cause for each of the prior prosecutions as well as the Grand Jury presentment for the current prosecution so that the [c]ourt [could] utilize this evidence to make a decision on [Appellant's] outstanding motion. The [c]ourt also provided the parties an opportunity to brief the issues before the Court. As a result, [Appellant] submitted a legal argument on or about December 21, 2017. The Commonwealth filed a Memorandum of Law on January 2, 2018.
Trial Court Opinion, 2/7/18, at 1-4.
To summarize, on November 21, 2016, as a result of charges filed by the District Attorney of Blair County, Appellant pled guilty to six counts of possession with intent to deliver (PWID) and conspiracy related to Appellant selling heroin to a confidential informant on June 12, 2015, July 16, 2015, September 10, 2015, October 23, 2015, January 29, 2016, and February 6, 2016. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 5 to 15 years of incarceration. At that time, the parties and the trial court "knew that Appellant was the subject of a grand jury investigation concerning those various transactions." Appellant's Brief at 6, 10.
On April 3, 2017, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania filed a criminal complaint against Appellant relating to a major, statewide heroin trafficking ring that resulted in Appellant being charged with seven drug-related crimes, including PWID and conspiracy, from January 1, 2015 through February 2, 2016. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions as well as Section 110 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code ("When prosecution barred by former prosecution for different offense").
On February 7, 2018, the trial court entered an order and opinion denying Appellant's motion to dismiss. Appellant timely filed this interlocutory appeal.1
Appellant presents a single issue for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN CONCLUDING THAT THE PRESENT PROSECUTION IS NOT BARRED BY ARTICLE 1 SECTION 10 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION AND THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?
Appellant's Brief at 4.
With respect to Appellant's double jeopardy claim, our scope and standard of review is as follows:
An appeal grounded in double jeopardy raises a question of constitutional law. This [C]ourt's scope of review in making a determination on a question of law is, as always, plenary. As with all questions of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo [.] To the extent that the factual findings of the trial court impact its double jeopardy ruling, we apply a more deferential standard of review to those findings:
Where issues of credibility and weight of the evidence are concerned, it is not the function of the appellate court to substitute its judgment based on a cold record for that of the trial court. The weight to be accorded conflicting evidence is exclusively for the fact finder, whose findings will not be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by the record.
Commonwealth v. Graham , 109 A.3d 733, 736 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted).
The prohibition against double jeopardy was designed to protect individuals from being tried or punished more than once for the same allegation or offense. Commonwealth v. Ball , 637 Pa. 100, 146 A.3d 755, 759 (2016). The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part, that no person shall "be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb [.]" U.S. Const. amend. V. Likewise, Article I, § 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides that "No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Pa. Const. art. I, § 10 ; see also Commonwealth v. Minnis , 83 A.3d 1047, 1049 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2014) (en banc ).
With regard to Section 110 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code, the policies served by the statute are two-fold: to protect accused persons from governmental harassment of undergoing successive trials for offenses stemming from the same episode, and to promote judicial economy and finality by avoiding repetitious litigation. Commonwealth v. George , 38 A.3d 893, 896 (Pa. Super. 2012). The statute provides:
§ 110. When prosecution barred by former prosecution for different offense
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 section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for the same offense) and the subsequent prosecution is for:
(i) any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on the first prosecution;
(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
(iii) the same conduct, unless:
(A) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is
...
