 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Bowman12/15/2003
1 Appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ("Commonwealth"), appeals from an Order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County on March 17, 2003. We reverse and remand with instructions.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2 Appellee, Jeffrey Bowman ("Bowman"), was charged with driving under the influence , 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3731(a)(1) and (4); driving while operating privilege is suspended or revoked, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1543(a); and habitual offenders, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 6503.1. The case had been dismissed on three separate occasions when the police failed to appear for the preliminary hearing. Both the police and an assistant district attorney were present at the fourth preliminary hearing held on November 21, 2002. At the conclusion of the hearing, Bowman was held for court on all of the above-listed charges. Bowman filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 6, 2002. A hearing was held on March 13, 2003. At the hearing the trial court dismissed the charges against Bowman with prejudice. The court found that the Commonwealth had violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 544(A) when it refiled charges against Bowman without written authority from the District Attorney.
3 On April 7, 2003, the Commonwealth filed a Notice of Appeal from the trial court's March 17, 2003 Order and a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. On April 8, 2003, the trial court entered an Amended Order stating that the charges against Bowman were "dismissed." In its 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court explained that, " his matter was dismissed for procedural reasons. The intent of the court was to dismiss the case without precluding the Commonwealth's ability to refile. The original order was amended due to this intent." 1925(a) Opinion, at 3. Subsequently, the trial court found, "that as a result of the Amended Order, this appeal is now interlocutory." Id.
4 The Commonwealth's appeal from the trial court's March 17, 2003, order is now before this Court. The Commonwealth presents the following issue for our review:
I. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the charges against defendant based upon an alleged violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 544(A)?
Appellant's Brief, at 4.
II. DISCUSSION
5 "Our standard of review of a trial court's order denying [or granting] a petition for writ of habeas corpus is limited to abuse of discretion." Commonwealth ex rel. Fortune v. Dragovich, 792 A.2d 1257, 1259 (Pa. Super. 2002) (citation omitted). "Thus, we may reverse the court's order only where the court has misapplied the law or exercised its discretion in a manner lacking reason." Id. (citation omitted). "As in all matters on appeal, the appellant bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate his entitlement to the relief he requests." Id. (citation omitted). Since review of the issue on appeal is a question of law, our Court's scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. Paxton, 821 A.2d 594 (Pa. Super. 2003).
6 On March 17, 2003, the trial court entered the following order:
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 17 th day of March, 2003, the Defendant having filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and after having argument thereon from both parties, on March 13, 2003, the Court enters the following.
ORDER
The Writ shall issue, and the charges brought against Defendant for violation of:
(1) 75 Pa.C.S.A. 3731(a)(1) and (4)
(2) 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1543(a) and
(3) 75 Pa.C.S.A. 6503.1
are hereby dismissed with Prejudice.
March 17, 2003, Order.
7 On April 7, 2003, the Commonwealth filed an appeal from the trial court's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|