� 1 Appellant, Jerry Morris, appeals the January 20, 2000 Order denying his motion to dismiss the informations filed against him by the Commonwealth on double jeopardy grounds. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude double jeopardy does not bar retrial of appellant.
� 2 On May 30, 1997, two police officers spotted a white 1990 Plymouth Acclaim on 41 st Street in Philadelphia. The officers noted the steering column was broken and the vehicle identification number (VIN) was falsified. The next day the officers located the vehicle in the yard of appellant’s auto part business and once again verified the VIN was falsified. Based upon that information, the officers investigated two other Acclaims located on appellant’s property and determined the VINs were switched amongst the three vehicles. The officers subsequently confiscated blank temporary registration and insurance cards from appellant’s property. Thereafter, appellant was charged with receiving stolen property, *fn1 dealing in vehicles with removed or falsified numbers, *fn2 removal or falsification of identification numbers *fn3 and related charges. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from the officers’ investigation and warrantless search and seizure of the vehicles found on his property. On July 31, 1998, the court granted his motion in part, finding the officers’ search and seizure of the two Acclaims found subsequent to the investigation of the white 1990 Acclaim violated appellant’s rights under Article I, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania State Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
� 3 A bench trial was conducted on April 8, 1999, during which time the Honorable Gwendolyn Bright, sua sponte, declared a mistrial. Judge Bright admitted she could not ignore the evidence regarding the additional vehicles found on appellant’s property, which was suppressed pre-trial, and that she no longer could remain unbiased or impartial. The case was scheduled before another judge and on July 12, 1999, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the informations based upon double jeopardy principles. On January 20, 2000, the trial court denied appellant’s motion and permitted him to appeal nunc pro tunc the court’s April 8, 1999 Order. This timely appeal followed.
