Opinion
J-S44023-16 No. 2151 EDA 2015
12-29-2017
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. JAHEED HYMON Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered June 17, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No: CP-51-CR-0011353-2014 BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. , STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ. JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.:
Appellant, Jaheed Hymon, appeals from the June 17, 2015 judgment of sentence imposing two years of probation for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle plus restitution. We affirm.
18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3928. --------
The trial court recited the pertinent facts and procedural history in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion:
This is an appeal by [Appellant], who appeals this court's order denying [Appellant's] motion to dismiss pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110. On July 10, 2014, a Philadelphia police officer observed a vehicle being operated with a driver's side rear brake light out in violation of [75 Pa.C.S.A. § 4303(b)]. The officer did an NCIC check on the vehicle and discovered that the vehicle was stolen. [Appellant] attempted to exit the vehicle without placing it in park when the officers pulled the vehicle to initiate a stop. Officers placed the vehicle, in park, secured [Appellant], and subsequently charged him with receiving stolen property, and unauthorized use
of a motor vehicle. The officer also issued [Appellant] a traffic citation for operating a vehicle without a license and operating a vehicle without rear headlights.Trial Court Opinion, 11/9/2015, at 1-2.
On September 11, 2014, [Appellant] was found guilty in absentia for traffic violations before the Municipal Court-Traffic Division. On April 17, 2015, [Appellant] filed a motion to dismiss his criminal charges pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110. On June 17, 2015, this court denied the motion and found [Appellant] guilty of unauthorized use of motor/other vehicles following a non-jury trial.
Immediately after the non-jury trial, the trial court sentenced Appellant as set forth above. This timely appeal followed. Appellant raises one issue:
Did not the lower court err in denying [Appellant's] motion to dismiss pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110 where [Appellant] had previously been convicted of an offense that arose from the same criminal episode as the offense in the instant case?Appellant's Brief at 4. Section 110 normally bars a subsequent prosecution where a former prosecution, arising out of the same facts or criminal episode, resulted in an acquittal or conviction in the same judicial district. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 110(1)(ii). In Commonwealth v. Perfetto , 169 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Super. 2017)(en banc), this Court delineated an exception to § 110's compulsory joinder requirement unique to Philadelphia County. Under Perfetto , a former prosecution for a summary traffic offense within the jurisdiction of the traffic division of the Philadelphia Municipal Court does not bar a subsequent prosecution arising out of the same facts or criminal episode. In light of Perfetto , Appellant cannot obtain relief.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/29/17