Traffic court philadelphia pa9/12/2023 ![]() ![]() ![]() However, the Commonwealth argued that because the Municipal Court lacked jurisdiction over the PWID, then the trial court was correct in denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss for that claim. The Commonwealth conceded that they could not prosecute the defendant for the K/I charge because it fell within the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction. Perfetto held that Section 110 generally prohibits the government from proceeding with a prosecution subject to the jurisdiction of the Philadelphia Municipal Court. On appeal at the Superior Court, the Commonwealth acknowledged that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. ![]() However, the Municipal Court did have jurisdiction to adjudicate his K/I charge because the maximum sentence he could have received was three years’ incarceration (assuming he had a prior K/I conviction) and thus that charge fell within the Municipal Court’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the Municipal Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the defendant’s PWID charge at the trial stage. In the instant case, the defendant was charged with PWID and because he was accused of distributing heroin, the maximum sentence (assuming it was his first PWID conviction) was fifteen years’ incarceration. Further, a defendant cannot have a trial for F1 Robbery for the same reason. As an example, a defendant cannot plead guilty to an F1 Robbery in front of a Municipal Court judge because the court does not have jurisdiction to accept that guilty plea. Next, in Philadelphia, the Municipal Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate criminal offenses that are punishable up to five years. First, Philadelphia Traffic Court was merged into Municipal Court in 2013 and thus became the Traffic Division of the Municipal Court. Some insight into how Philadelphia Courts operate is necessary to understand this decision. The defendant then filed an interlocutory appeal. The trial court was not persuaded and denied his motion. In other words, the defendant argued that when he was found guilty of the traffic offense, he could no longer be prosecuted because he had already been found guilty of a criminal offense that arose from this transaction. § 110 (“Section 110”) requires that the government bring all known charges against a defendant arising out of a single criminal episode occurring within the same judicial district in a single proceeding. The defendant then subsequently filed a motion to dismiss arguing that 18 Pa.C.S. The defendant was subsequently found guilty, in absentia, of the summary traffic offense. The defendant was stopped for a traffic stop and was charged with driving with a suspended license, possession with intent to deliver (“PWID”), and the knowing and intentional possession of a controlled substance (“K/I”). Nonetheless, this will have a positive impact on many individuals who have outstanding felony cases in Philadelphia. As a practical matter, it is unclear on how much of an effect it will have on future cases because the Philadelphia Police Department no longer issues a traffic citation when they also arrest a defendant for a non-traffic offense. This decision is significant and it could result in hundreds of felony cases being dismissed. Johnson, holding that a defendant cannot be tried for a felony case if his traffic offense that arose out of the same criminal transaction was adjudicated. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |