from the Order October 2, 2015 in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s):
BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and RANSOM, J.
Tayquine Diggs, appeals from the order entered October 2,
2015, denying his motion to dismiss, which asserted a
violation of Pennsylvania's compulsory joinder rule.
See 18 Pa.C.S. § 110. After careful review, we
remand with instructions.
derive the following statement of facts and procedural
background of this case from the trial court opinion. In
January 2013, Appellant was arrested in the City and County
of Philadelphia. At that time, Appellant was charged with
driving under the influence ("DUI") and
simultaneously charged with the summary traffic offenses of
driving while operating privilege is suspended and driving
without required lighting. In March 2013, Appellant was found
guilty of both traffic offenses in the Traffic Court of
Philadelphia. The remaining charge was listed in the
Philadelphia Municipal Court for disposition.
court listing in May 2015, Appellant moved to dismiss the DUI
charge pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, known as the
compulsory joinder rule.Following a hearing, the Honorable Joyce
Eubanks denied Appellant's motion to dismiss. However, no
findings of fact, conclusions of law, or findings as to
frivolousness were entered on the record. Municipal Court
Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 5/28/2015 at 3-13. Appellant timely
filed a petition to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas,
seeking a writ of certiorari. Thereafter, the Court of Common
Pleas denied the petition.
timely filed a notice of appeal in this Court. Appellant
filed a court-ordered 1925(b) statement wherein he claimed
that the Court of Common Pleas erred in denying the writ of
certiorari and that this matter should have been dismissed
pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 110. The court filed a
responsive opinion in July 2016.
raises the following claim for our review:
1. Did not the lower court err in denying [A]ppellant's
motion to dismiss pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 110 where
[A]ppellant had previously been convicted of an offense which
arose from the same criminal episode as the offense in the
Appellant's Brief, at 3.
initial matter, we must determine whether this Court has
jurisdiction over the instant appeal. Issues of jurisdiction
may be raised sua sponte. Commonwealth v.
Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017, 1021 (Pa. Super. 2015).
order denying a pretrial motion to dismiss on double jeopardy
grounds is appealable as a collateral order. See
Commonwealth v. Brady, 508 A.2d 286, 289-91 (1986)
(holding that an immediate appeal from the denial of a double
jeopardy claim is allowable under the collateral order
doctrine where the trial court does not make a finding of
frivolousness). Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure
587(B) governs motions to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds
and provides in relevant part:
(1) A motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds shall
state specifically and with particularity the basis for the
claim of double jeopardy and the facts that support the
(2) A hearing on the motion shall be scheduled in accordance
with Rule 577 (Procedures Following Filing of Motion). The
hearing shall be ...