Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. DAVID BARTLEY (01/24/79)

decided: January 24, 1979.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
DAVID BARTLEY, APPELLANT



No. 75 April Term 1978, Appeal from the Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Pa. (Crim. Div.) entered Aug. 8, 1977, at No. 860 of 1976.

COUNSEL

John P. Dohanich, Assistant Public Defender, Ambridge, for appellant.

John Lee Brown, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Beaver, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Jacobs, President Judge, and Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, Spaeth and Hester, JJ. Hoffman, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Spaeth

[ 262 Pa. Super. Page 392]

This appeal raises a question concerning the application of section 110 of the Crimes Code.*fn1

On the evening of August 22, 1976, appellant lost control of his automobile and it went off the road and struck a house. As a result of a police investigation of the incident, appellant was charged with reckless driving*fn2 and driving under the influence of alcohol.*fn3 The complaint containing these charges was filed on August 26, 1976. On that same day a traffic citation was issued charging appellant with operating a motor vehicle without a license.*fn4 A preliminary hearing was held on September 26, 1976. At this hearing*fn5 appellant entered a plea of guilty to operating a motor vehicle without a license and paid a fine of $60; he waived the other charges into the Court of Common Pleas for a trial by jury. An information charging appellant with driving

[ 262 Pa. Super. Page 393]

    under the influence of alcohol was approved on November 1, 1976.*fn6 Appellant moved to quash the information on the ground that the prosecution was barred by section 110 of the Crimes Code. The lower court denied the motion to quash, and appellant was tried, convicted, and sentenced.

Section 110 of the Crimes Code provides:

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 same ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.