Com. v. Davis, C. No. 1665 WDA 2019
The case of Commonwealth v. Davis addresses issues of compulsory joinder and rights against double jeopardy.
In this case, the defendant was charged with a felony count of fleeing and attempting to elude a police office, and 6 accompanying summary offenses. At the preliminary hearing, the Magisterial District Justice dismissed the count of fleeing and attempting to elude. The Commonwealth attempted to withdraw the summary counts, but the judge took it upon himself to enter a conviction to the 6 summary offenses and imposed fines. The Commonwealth later that same day, refiled the same fleeing and eluding and summary offenses in a new information. 
The defendant appealed the refiling of charges claiming that it violated compulsory joinder as well as his rights against double jeopardy. As an initial matter, the court found that this was a collateral issue appropriate for appeal prior to final judgment on the case. As the appeal was proper, the court addressed the merits of the case.
The first issue was whether it was appropriate to file the charges in front of a new MDJ. The court found that the Commonwealth did not strictly comply with the rule requiring that it be filed in front of the same issuing authority, however, that does not automatically entitle the defendant to relief. Here, the defendant was not entitled to relief as he failed to establish how the non-compliance prejudiced him.
As to the claims of compulsory joinder and double jeopardy, the court must first find if the defendant was properly convicted of the 6 summary offenses. The court found that after the fleeing charge was originally dismissed, and the Commonwealth sought to withdraw the additional charges, the court no longer had jurisdiction to issue a judgment on the summary offenses. As such, there was no prior conviction for which the new charges would run afoul of compulsory joinder or double jeopardy. The court ultimately found that while the Commonwealth made a number of missteps in handling this prosecution, the defendant was not entitled to any relief. Just goes to show that while sometimes procedure matters a great deal, sometimes it doesn’t matter at all.
Our Clients are entitled to a Bill of Rights which states:
- Our clients have the right to expect, we will be proactive in communication. You will hear it from us first. We will return all phone calls, texts and emails promptly.
- Our clients have the right to expect plain speaking, straight shooting. No B. S.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to do it right the first time, every time.
- Our clients have the right to expect us to be on time and professionally prepared for all court appearances, and all meetings.
- Our clients have the right to expect that they will be fully informed at all times.
This is our promise to you. Call today to get us on your side: (717) 657-3900.
