Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1973–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Drabic v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2019While this may not call into question the single criminal episode rule, it does call into question the validity of prior cases discussing the application of that rule in the civil license suspension context. 2 See Drabic v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 906 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2006); Freundt v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 883 A.2d 503 (Pa. 2005); Zimmerman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 759 A.2d 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (en banc). 5 Second, Gayman is distinguishable because it concerns Section 1532(c) of the Vehicle Code, involving violations of The 2014In another 4-3 decision, after finding it unnecessary to employ a merger analysis, this Court concluded that Sections (a) and (a.l) contained the language “conviction for any offense” which was similar to that contained in Section 1532(c); therefore, we found it fitting to employ the single criminal episode analysis of Freundt and reaffirmed that “only a single suspension can be imposed based upon a single criminal episode.” Drabic, 588 Pa. at 675 , 906 A.2d at 1156 . | 2 | 5 |
Strawn v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2019It explained: “employing a single criminal episode analysis for [Vehicle Code] violations would, in effect, provide drivers a ‘volume discount,’ and thereby encourage, rather than discourage, the commission of multiple traffic offenses.” Id. 2014In further support of its contention, PennDOT cites to this Court’s decision in Strawn v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., 609 Pa. 482 , 17 A.3d 320 (2011) wherein we specifically held that the single criminal episode analysis should be strictly limited to suspensions imposed under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(c) 11 for drug-related convictions and stated that moving violations separately listed in Section 1532(b) 12 of the Vehicle Code reflect a legislative intent to impose an operating privilege suspension for each separate violation. | 2 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Reidgreen2 sentences2022A determination of substantial duplication “depends ultimately on how and what the Commonwealth must prove in the subsequent prosecution.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 77 A.3d 579, 585 (Pa. 2013). 2022“Finally, in considering the temporal and logical relationship between criminal acts, [courts should be] guided by the policy considerations § 110 was designed to serve, which “must not be interpreted to sanction ‘volume discounting[,]’ [procedural maneuvering,] or . . . to label an ‘enterprise’ an ‘episode.’” Reid, supra at 585-86 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Freundt v. Com. Dept. of Transp.green2 sentences2019While this may not call into question the single criminal episode rule, it does call into question the validity of prior cases discussing the application of that rule in the civil license suspension context. 2 See Drabic v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 906 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2006); Freundt v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 883 A.2d 503 (Pa. 2005); Zimmerman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 759 A.2d 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (en banc). 5 Second, Gayman is distinguishable because it concerns Section 1532(c) of the Vehicle Code, involving violations of The 2009Section 3743 (relating to accidents involving damage to attended vehicle or property). ... (3) The department shall suspend the operating privilege of any driver for 12 months upon receiving a certified record of the driver's conviction of section 3733 (relating to fleeing or attempting to elude police officer).... 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(b). [4] Strawn did not appeal his one year suspension for his DUI conviction. [5] Freundt, 584 Pa. 283, 290 , 883 A.2d 503, 507 . [6] The dissent suggests that our Supreme Court in Drabic clearly mandated a single criminal episode standard for all license suspensio | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Schmidtgreen2 sentences2022The single criminal episode analysis essentially considers the totality of the circumstances. -8- J-S15045-21 Id. 2022“The single criminal episode analysis essentially considers the totality of the circumstances.” Commonwealth v. Schmidt, 919 A.2d 241, 246 (Pa.Super. 2007). | 1 | 2 |
Zimmerman v. Commonwealth Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensingred2 sentences2019While this may not call into question the single criminal episode rule, it does call into question the validity of prior cases discussing the application of that rule in the civil license suspension context. 2 See Drabic v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 906 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2006); Freundt v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 883 A.2d 503 (Pa. 2005); Zimmerman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 759 A.2d 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (en banc). 5 Second, Gayman is distinguishable because it concerns Section 1532(c) of the Vehicle Code, involving violations of The 2011Under Zimmerman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 759 A.2d 953, 957 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), a merger of convictions will also merge the civil consequence. | 1 | 2 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2019“The applicable rule is that where the same act … constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Com. v. Anderson, 650 A.2d 20, 23 (Pa. 1994) (emphasis added) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Andersongreen1 sentence2019“The applicable rule is that where the same act … constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Com. v. Anderson, 650 A.2d 20, 23 (Pa. 1994) (emphasis added) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)). | 1 | 1 |
Gayman v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportationgreen1 sentence2019She claims the rule permits “[o]nly a single suspension … where multiple violations arise from a single criminal episode.” Appellant’s Br. at 4 (quoting Gayman v. Dep’t of Transp., 65 A.3d 1041, 1044 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2014The Commonwealth Court herein acknowledged that Straum overruled Drabic in part, though it erroneously extrapolated from our holding therein that “the merger analysis should be applied to suspensions imposed for moving violations, such as those under sections 1532(a) and (a.1).” Bell v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., 71 A.3d 1092, 1095 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Benton v. Marylandgreen1 sentence1973See Hall, Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, Modern Criminal Procedure (1969) at 1213. [2] Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). [3] A minority of the Ashe court, Justices BRENNAN, DOUGLAS and MARSHALL, would have adopted the same criminal episode test expressed by Mr. Justice ROBERTS. [1] It seems to me clear that today's decision has the effect of declaring unconstitutional Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 219, a rule promulgated by this Court: "(a) Where murder is alleged in an indictment, no other counts may be joined in the indictment except voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. "(b) Tw | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Drabic v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences2019While this may not call into question the single criminal episode rule, it does call into question the validity of prior cases discussing the application of that rule in the civil license suspension context. 2 See Drabic v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 906 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2006); Freundt v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 883 A.2d 503 (Pa. 2005); Zimmerman v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 759 A.2d 953 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (en banc). 5 Second, Gayman is distinguishable because it concerns Section 1532(c) of the Vehicle Code, involving violations of The 2014In another 4-3 decision, after finding it unnecessary to employ a merger analysis, this Court concluded that Sections (a) and (a.l) contained the language “conviction for any offense” which was similar to that contained in Section 1532(c); therefore, we found it fitting to employ the single criminal episode analysis of Freundt and reaffirmed that “only a single suspension can be imposed based upon a single criminal episode.” Drabic, 588 Pa. at 675 , 906 A.2d at 1156 . | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. MDP
green
2 sentences2017M.D.P., 831 A.2d at 719 n.3. 2016M.D.P., 831 A.2d at 719 n.3. | 3 | 2007–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Hude
green
2 sentences2019Com. v. Hude, 458 A.2d 177 (Pa. 1983). 2008A "single criminal episode" involves violations that are "logically and temporally related.” Commonwealth v. Hude, 500 Pa. 482 , 458 A.2d 177 (1983). | 2 | 2008–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Lawson
neutral
2 sentences1983The same criminal episode test was not met in Commonwealth v. Lawson, 306 Pa. Super. 414 , 452 A. 2d 793 (1982), where gasoline was stolen from an ARCO station and was used to fill an automobile which had been stolen from a parking lot only two hours earlier. 1983The same criminal episode test was not met in Commonwealth v. Lawson, 306 Pa. Super. 414 , 452 A. 2d 793 (1982), where gasoline was stolen from an ARCO station and was used to fill an automobile which had been stolen from a parking lot only two hours earlier. | 2 | 1983–1983 |
Bell v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
2 sentences2015Bell v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 96 A.3d 1005 , 1019-1020 n.18 (Pa. 2014) (explaining that Supreme Court did “not re-examine the single criminal episode analysis as it has been employed in the context of Section 1532(c), because DOT has not questioned herein the propriety of its application to operating privilege suspensions that arise from convictions under [the Drug Act].”). 2015Bell v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 96 A.3d 1005 , 1019-1020 n.18 (Pa. 2014) (explaining that Supreme Court did “not re-examine the single criminal episode analysis as it has been employed in the context of Section 1532(c), because DOT has not questioned herein the propriety of its application to operating privilege suspensions that arise from convictions under [the Drug Act].”). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Collins
green
2 sentences2014At the same time, Bell argues our prior decision in Commonwealth v. Collins, 564 Pa. 144 , 764 A.2d 1056 (2001) is inapposite because even though it could have imposed upon Bell consecutive sentences on the two homicide convictions, the sentencing court did not do so, and no appeal was taken therefrom. 2014At the same time, Bell argues our prior decision in Commonwealth v. Collins, 564 Pa. 144 , 764 A.2d 1056 (2001) is inapposite because even though it could have imposed upon Bell consecutive sentences on the two homicide convictions, the sentencing court did not do so, and no appeal was taken therefrom. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Reinhart v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2009We explained that because the Supreme Court had reasoned that the General Assembly’s use of the words “conviction” and “offense” in Section 1532(c) meant they intended for the words to have two separate meanings, it followed that “since a conviction of an offense is a conviction stemming from a criminal episode, an offense for the purpose of § 1532(c) is a single criminal episode.” 5 We concluded therefore, that Freundt stood for the proposition that “the single criminal episode analysis should be undertaken only where the suspension is brought under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(c), which authorizes susp 2009We explained that because the Supreme Court had reasoned that the General Assembly's use of the words "conviction" and "offense" in Section 1532(c) meant they intended for the words to have two separate meanings, it followed that "since a conviction of an offense is a conviction stemming from a criminal episode, an offense for the purpose of § 1532(c) is a single criminal episode." [5] We concluded therefore, that Freundt stood for the proposition that "the single criminal episode analysis should be undertaken only where the suspension is brought under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1532(c), which authorizes su | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1986In Commonwealth v. Edwards, 264 Pa.Super. 223 , 399 A.2d 747 (1979), this Court stated that the same criminal episode requirement is satisfied where “ 'an offense is a necessary step in the accomplishment of a given criminal objective ... [or where] the commission of an additional offense ... result[s] from the attempt to secure the benefit of a previous offense or to conceal its commission. ...’” Id., 264 Pa.Superior Ct. at 228, 399 A.2d at 750 , quoting Model Penal Code § 1.08 Comment at 37 (Tent. 1986In Commonwealth v. Edwards, 264 Pa.Super. 223 , 399 A.2d 747 (1979), this Court stated that the same criminal episode requirement is satisfied where “ 'an offense is a necessary step in the accomplishment of a given criminal objective ... [or where] the commission of an additional offense ... result[s] from the attempt to secure the benefit of a previous offense or to conceal its commission. ...’” Id., 264 Pa.Superior Ct. at 228, 399 A.2d at 750 , quoting Model Penal Code § 1.08 Comment at 37 (Tent. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.