Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court held that an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds was interlocutory because the trial court had found the claim frivolous. Relying on Commonwealth v. Brady, the court quashed the appeal and stated that the defendant could seek review after final judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Superior Court had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds when the trial court had made written findings that the motion was frivolous.
- Whether the written finding of frivolousness required Williams to await final judgment before seeking appellate review of his double-jeopardy claim.
Holdings
- An appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds is not immediately appealable when the hearing court has considered the motion and made written findings that it is frivolous.
- Williams must await final judgment before seeking appellate review of his double-jeopardy claim; he may challenge the finding of frivolousness only by requesting a stay directly from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Key quotations
“an appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds should not be permitted where the hearing court has considered the motion and made written findings that the motion is frivolous.” (503)
“The reasoning and result in Brady apply to the present case.” (503)
“Appellant therefore must await final judgment before he can seek appellate review of his double jeopardy claim.” (503)
Factual background
The Commonwealth sought to prosecute Williams for the first of three disturbances occurring on the night of June 15 and 16, 1985. Williams had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct arising from the second disturbance, and charges arising from the third disturbance had been dismissed because the Commonwealth failed to comply with Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 130(d). Williams argued that those earlier proceedings barred prosecution for the first disturbance on double-jeopardy grounds.
Procedural history
The Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas denied Williams's motion to dismiss on December 23, 1985, characterizing the double-jeopardy claim as frivolous. Williams filed a timely notice of appeal, and the trial court later filed an opinion supporting its order. The Superior Court quashed the appeal as interlocutory under Commonwealth v. Brady because the trial court had made written findings that the motion was frivolous.