Where a state criminal rule allows for dismissal of a case on the merits rather than via conviction or acquittal, is this sufficient to trigger protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and bar a second subsequent prosecution and associated punishment for acts part of the same continuous crime that the prosecution knew of prior to resolution of the first case?

Question Presented At CC 2015-14956, the Commonwealth charged Sonya Porter (“Ms. Porter”) with one count of Fraud in Obtaining Food Stamps, 62 P.S. §481(a) (‘welfare fraud”), for the continuing fraud between August 1, 2014 and January 31, 2015. The case was resolved pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 586, which permits a final order disposition upon payment of restitution. Thereafter, the Commonwealth charged Ms. Porter at CC 2016-11779 with another count of welfare fraud, this time for the period beginning the very next day, from February 1, 2015 to July 31, 2015. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania and Court of Common Pleas found these cases did not involve the same crime based only on the different time period and different employer not reported, and only this Honorable Court can clarify that the Double Jeopardy Clause under the United States Constitution bars additional punishment and prosecution after such a final resolution of all outstanding overpayments. Based on the foregoing, the question presented is: Where a state criminal rule allows for dismissal of a case on the merits rather than via conviction or acquittal, is this sufficient to trigger protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and bar a second subsequent prosecution and associated punishment for acts part of the same continuous crime that the prosecution knew of prior to resolution of the first case? i Il. _