Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCP-21-CR-0000047-2010 COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : RICHARD ALLEN HALL : CP-21-CR-0047-2010 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT Masland, J., March 4, 2010:-- Before this court is defendant’s pro se motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. Following an evidentiary hearing on February 8, 2010, this court now grants defendant's motion to dismiss. The Commonwealth filed the instant complaint against defendant on October 25, 2006. 1 Following a period of unavailability not relevant here, defendant was arrested in Cambria County on new criminal charges in September 2008. On November 12, 2008, Magisterial District Judge Correal lodged a detainer against defendant on the complaint at issue, but the preliminary hearing did not occur until January 4, 2010. Defendant asserts that, in the least, he has remained incarcerated and available for trial from the date Magisterial District Judge Correal lodged the detainer—a period far longer than the 180 days required to initiate trial per Rule 600. For its part, the Commonwealth argues that the defendant has remained unavailable within the meaning of Rule 600 because the Magisterial District Judge failed to inform the relevant prosecutors and State Trooper of defendant's availability for trial following the lodging of the detainer. The Commonwealth also seeks to exclude time from the prompt trial calculus due to its inability to locate defendant despite its exercise of due diligence. For the following reasons, this court disagrees. 1 Although defendant did not fully concede his unavailability for trial in the instant matter prior to November 12, 2008, such time is not essential for this review. CP-21-CR-0047-2010 Rule 600 states, “[t]rial in a court case in which a written complaint is filed against the defendant, when the defendant is incarcerated on that case, shall commence no later than 180 days from the date on which the complaint is filed.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2). Relevant here, periods of time when “the defendant could not be apprehended because his or her whereabouts were unknown and could not be determined by due diligence,” and periods of delay caused by the unavailability of the defendant are excluded when calculating the period for commencement of trial. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1), (C)(3)(a). Although the defendant may dispute the exclusion of a portion of the time prior to the lodging of the detainer against him, that time period is not essential to the calculation. In essence, this court need only determine defendant's availability for trial subsequent to the detainer and calculate whether sufficient excludable time exists to bring the Commonwealth within the prompt trial requirement of Rule 600. The Commonwealth argues that defendant remained unavailable following the lodging of the detainer against him because the Magisterial District Judge failed to inform the district attorney's office or the relevant State Trooper of defendant's incarceration in Cambria County. Imperfect communication among the judiciary, district attorney's office, and trooper does not establish the defendant's unavailability following the lodging of a detainer against him. See Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 372 A.2d 473, 474 (Pa. Super. 1977) (finding defendant available for trial following lodging of detainer despite sheriff's failure to inform district attorney). Thus, defendant was available for trial and incarcerated on the instant complaint beginning November 12, 2008. The Commonwealth next seeks to exclude time from the prompt trial calculus based on its inability to locate defendant despite duly diligent efforts. The Commonwealth argues that -2- CP-21-CR-0047-2010 the trooper spoke with defendant several times and advised him of his need to resolve the complaint. However, these conversations occurred prior to the lodging of the detainer. In fact, there is no evidence of any communication between the trooper and defendant during the period of defendant's availability. Conversely, it was the defendant who communicated on at least two occasions with the Magisterial District Judge in an unsuccessful attempt to move 2 his case forward. As such, the Commonwealth fails to meet its burden to establish due diligence in its efforts to timely locate defendant and no time will be excluded from the prompt trial calculus on those grounds. See Commonwealth v. Pichini, 454 A.2d 609, 610-11 (Pa. Super. 1982) (finding lack of due diligence where Commonwealth failed to communicate with incarcerated defendant and made no effort to process criminal action against him). In conclusion, (1) defendant became available for trial on November 12, 2008, the date the Magisterial District Judge lodged a detainer against him on the instant complaint; (2) any breakdown in communication among the Magisterial District Judge, prosecutors, and trooper did not render defendant unavailable for trial; and (3) the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of establishing its inability to locate defendant despite duly diligent efforts. Absent any excludable time after November 12, 2008, defendant’s preliminary hearing on the instant matter on January 4, 2010 fell well beyond the 180-day period required for prompt trial of incarcerated defendants. Therefore, the following order is issued. 2 This also indicates defendant did not tactically delay trial in the instant matter. Cf. Commonwealth v. Baird, 601 Pa. 625, 975 A.2d 1113 (2009) (excluding time from Rule 600 calculus attributable to defendant's strategy of willful ignorance regarding status of pending charges). -3- CP-21-CR-0047-2010 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of March, 2010, following an evidentiary hearing on February 9, 2010, defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial pursuant to IS GRANTED Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, . By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Jaime Keating, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Richard Hall, Pro se Cumberland County Prison 1101 Claremont Road Carlisle, PA 17013 :sal -4- COMMONWEALTH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : V. : : RICHARD ALLEN HALL : CP-21-CR-0047-2010 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of March, 2010, following an evidentiary hearing on February 9, 2010, defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial pursuant to IS GRANTED Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, . By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. Jaime Keating, Esquire Assistant District Attorney Richard Hall, Pro se Cumberland County Prison 1101 Claremont Road Carlisle, PA 17013 :sal