Com. v. Robinson, C. ( 2016 )

J-S44026-16
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
Appellee
v.
CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON
Appellant No. 3369 EDA 2014
Appeal from the Double Jeopardy Order Dated November 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County
Criminal Division at No: CP-45-CR-0002139-2013
BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., STABILE, and MUSMANNO, JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY STABILE, J.: FILED JULY 25, 2016
This case returns to us following our decision to remand to the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (“trial court”) for issuance of a
supplemental opinion detailing the trial court’s compliance with Pa.R.Crim.P.
587(B). Briefly, consistent with Commonwealth v. Taylor, 120 A.3d 1017
(Pa. Super. 2015), we remanded the case to the trial court because we were
unable to determine, based on the trial court’s noncompliance with Rule
587(B), whether we could exercise jurisdiction under Pa.R.A.P. 313 (relating
to collateral orders) over Appellant’s appeal from an order of the trial court
denying his pretrial motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. See
Commonwealth v. Robinson, 131 A.3d 85 (Pa. Super. 2015) (unpublished
memorandum). As we explained in Taylor, an order denying a double
jeopardy motion is appealable as a collateral order so long as the motion is
J-S44026-16
not found to be frivolous by the lower court. Taylor, 120 A.3d at 1021-22.
The requirement that a lower court render a specific finding on frivolousness
is now expressly mandated under Rule 587(B).
Instantly, consistent with our August 7, 2015 decision and in
compliance with Rule 587(B) as interpreted by Taylor, the trial court in its
November 10, 2015 order denied Appellant’s pretrial motion to dismiss on
double jeopardy grounds because it found the motion to be “frivolous.” Trial
Court Order, 11/10/15, at ¶ 2. Given the trial court’s finding on
frivolousness, we now conclude that the trial court’s order denying the
double jeopardy motion does not qualify as a collateral order under Rule
313. Accordingly, we must quash this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 7/25/2016
-2-