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.

GEORGE S. (04/20/81)

filed: April 20, 1981.

IN THE INTEREST OF GEORGE S., III. APPEAL OF GEORGE S., III


No. 2246 October Term, 1979, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Juvenile Division, Nos. 24267902, 24267905 and 24267906

COUNSEL

F. Michael Friedman, Media, for appellant.

Kristine F. Hughey, Assistant District Attorney, Media, for Commonwealth, participating party.

Brosky, Hoffman and Cirillo, JJ.*fn*

Author: Brosky

[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 218]

In June, 1979, appellant, George S., III, a juvenile was arrested and charged with having committed certain delinquent acts.*fn1 Following the filing of several petitions alleging delinquency, a hearing was held in juvenile court on July 3, 1979. Although there was some uncertainty at the beginning of the proceeding as to whether it was for transfer of

[ 286 Pa. Super. Page 219]

    adjudication, the hearing judge, after making findings in accordance with 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6355, entered an order transferring the case to the criminal division.

Following the transfer order, the district attorney filed criminal informations, and the juvenile filed omnibus pretrial motions to dismiss on the ground that he would be twice placed in jeopardy by adult criminal proceedings. Subsequently, the criminal division entered an order stating that to try appellant would place him twice in jeopardy but stating also that "we do not agree that the Defendant should be 'discharged' from the above Informations and also on the Juvenile Complaints." It ordered that the informations be quashed and the transfer order revoked and that the defendant be remanded to the juvenile division. The juvenile then filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. On October 30, 1979, a hearing on defendant's motion was held and it was denied. The hearing judge, asked by the Commonwealth to make a final determination based upon the notes of testimony of the July 3 hearing, decided not to proceed with the matter after being informed by defense counsel that counsel intended to take an immediate appeal to the Superior Court on the double jeopardy issue. This appeal followed.

The issue for our determination is whether further proceedings in the juvenile court would place the appellant twice in jeopardy. The court below, in denying defendant's motion to dismiss, held that he had not been exposed to double jeopardy. We affirm.

Before we can address the merits of the instant appeal, we must first determine whether the matter is properly before us at this time. The Commonwealth contends that the order appealed from is interlocutory in nature. It is axiomatic that only final orders are appealable to our court. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 742.

In Commonwealth v. Bolden, 472 Pa. 602, 373 A.2d 90 (1977), our Supreme Court held that where a motion alleging the ground of double ...


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.