Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-1730-2001 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 01-1730 CRIMINAL CHARGE: (1) UNLAWFUL DEL. OR MANU. OR POSS. WITH INTENT TO DELIVER SCHEDULE I, C. S. (2) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO UNLAWFUL DELIVERY OF MANU. OR POSS. WITH INTENT TO DELIVER SCH. I, C.S. AFFIANT: AGENT RONALD DILLER JOHN C. SHASKUS IN RE: MOTION FOR POST -CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF BEFORE HESS, 1. OPINION AND ORDER On or about June 19, 1997, a grand jury indictment was issued against the petitioner, John C. Shaskus, on drug related charges stemming from activity occurring in 1994 and 1995. On October 2, 1997, a criminal complaint was filed against Mr. Shaskus and a warrant issued. Mr. Shaskus was eventually arrested on July 1, 2001, three years and nine months after the warrant issued. In December of 200 1, the petitioner filed a pretrial motion to dismiss under Rule 600. This motion was denied. In January of2002, Mr. Shaskus was found guilty of possession with intent to deliver marijuana and criminal conspiracy. An appeal followed in which the petitioner alleged that his pretrial motion to dismiss under Rule 600 had been improperly denied. The Superior Court affirmed the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on March 12, 2003. The defendant has filed the instant PCRA petition alleging newly discovered evidence: specifically, that the defendant's warrant was entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) in May of 1998 and not in November of 1997, as alleged at the defendant's pretrial Rule CP-21-CR-1730-2001 600 hearing. Because it now appears that the warrant for the defendant's arrest was entered into NCIC more than seven months later than initially indicated, the petitioner contends that the result of the Rule 600 hearing would have been different, the charges would have been dismissed, and the defendant is now entitled to a dismissal by way of post-conviction relief. We disagree for several reasons. The petitioner's claim for relief is based, in large part, on an allegation that there was "unavailability at the time of trial of exculpatory evidence that has subsequently become available and that would have affected the outcome of the trial ifit had been introduced." See 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9543(a)(2)(vi). There is no indication, in this case, that the later entry of his arrest warrant into NCIC was exculpatory with respect to the actual convictions in this case. In addition, there is no reason to believe that NCIC records were unavailable in 2001 nor that the record was less available then than it is today. In addition, there is a serious question as to whether or not Mr. Shaskus's allegations are cognizable under the Post-Conviction Relief Act. Pertinent to this discussion are the following two sections of the Act entitling the petitioner to relief where a conviction or sentence resulted from: (i) A violation of the Constitution of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermine the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. (ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermine the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. 2 CP-21-CR-1730-2001 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9543(a)(2)(k)(ii) Commonwealth v. Prout, 814 A.2d 693 (Pa.Super. 2002) makes it clear that violations of Rule 600 are cognizable under the PCRA. This was a case, however, where the failure to raise the Rule 600 violation resulted from the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. In this case, Mr. Shaskus makes no allegation concerning ineffective assistance of counsel in relation to his Rule 600 claim. We agree, also, with the Commonwealth that a violation of Rule 600 is not necessarily a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The denial of a state right to be tried within a certain number of days is a violation of a state procedural right which does not in any way go to the fundamental fairness of the trial. Commonwealth v. Dukeman, 565 A.2d 1204 (Pa.Super 1989), citing Davis v. Wainwright, 547 F.2d. 261 (5th cir. 1977). Finally, even assuming that the defendant's issue has not been waived and is cognizable under the Post-Conviction Relief Act, we do not believe that this "after discovered" evidence would have changed the original outcome. Judge Oler, of this court, whose decision was subsequently affirmed by the Superior Court, excluded, as running against the Commonwealth, the entire time period between the filing of the criminal complaint and Mr. Shaskus's arrest. Neither Judge Oler nor the Superior Court measured any period of time from and after the date when petitioner's arrest warrant had been entered into NCIC. Instead, the entry of the warrant into NCIC was only one of numerous facts and circumstances which pointed to the Commonwealth's compliance with Rule 600. There is simply no basis to conclude that, had Judge Oler known that the warrant had been placed into NCIC at a later date, he would or should have ruled differently. 3 CP-21-CR-1730-2001 ORDER AND NOW, this day of April, 2005, following hearing and consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, the motion of the defendant, John C. Shaskus, for post-conviction relief is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1. Heather L. Graybill, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General 106 Lowther Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 For the Commonwealth Cumberland County District Attorney Susan Pickford, Esquire F or the Defendant :rlm 4 COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 01-1730 CRIMINAL CHARGE: (1) UNLAWFUL DEL. OR MANU. OR POSS. WITH INTENT TO DELIVER SCHEDULE I, C. S. (2) CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO UNLAWFUL DELIVERY OF MANU. OR POSS. WITH INTENT TO DELIVER SCH. I, C.S. AFFIANT: AGENT RONALD DILLER JOHN C. SHASKUS IN RE: MOTION FOR POST -CONVICTION COLLATERAL RELIEF BEFORE HESS, 1. ORDER AND NOW, this day of April, 2005, following hearing and consideration of the briefs filed by the parties, the motion of the defendant, John C. Shaskus, for post-conviction relief is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1. Heather L. Graybill, Esquire Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General 106 Lowther Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 For the Commonwealth Cumberland County District Attorney Susan Pickford, Esquire F or the Defendant