Commonwealth v. Burns

1

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. NAQUAN BURNS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. NAQUAN BURNS

Nos. 258 EDA 2023, 259 EDA 2023

No. J-A12036-24

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

June 24, 2024

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered December 28, 2022 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0009471-2021, CP-51-CR-0009472-2021

Benjamin D. Kohler, Esq.

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J.E., KING, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E ^[*]

MEMORANDUM

STEVENS, P.J.E.

In this consolidated appeal, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from the orders entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County granting Appellee Naquan Burns' motions to dismiss his cases docketed in the lower court at CP-51-CR-0009471-2021 ("9471-2021") and CP-51-CR-0009472-2021 ("9472-2021") pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600, i.e., the speedy trial rule. After a careful review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: On July 29, 2021, Appellee was arrested after he fired shots at police officers, and on July 30, 2021, the Commonwealth filed criminal complaints at docket numbers 9471-2021 and 9472-2021 charging Appellee with numerous offenses in connection with the incident.^[1] On August 3, 2021, bail was set, and Appellee's court appointed defense counsel filed a request for a mental health examination, which the trial court granted. The trial court listed both matters for a status hearing on August 23, 2021, and at the hearing, Appellee was deemed competent. The trial court then scheduled Appellee's preliminary hearing for September 9, 2021.

The certified docket entries for September 9, 2021, reveal the Commonwealth appeared "ready on call" to proceed with the preliminary hearing. However, Appellee "was not present due to a medical hold." The docket entries contain a notation that the Commonwealth requested the next earliest possible date, and the trial court rescheduled Appellee's preliminary hearing for October 5, 2021. Meanwhile, on October 1, 2021, the First Judicial District lifted the suspension on Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.^[2]

The certified docket entries for October 5, 2021, reveal "defense ready." However, the Commonwealth requested a continuance for "further investigation." The trial court rescheduled Appellee's preliminary hearing for November 17, 2021. The docket entries reveal both parties appeared for the November 17, 2021, preliminary hearing, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the court bound over all charges for trial at both lower court docket numbers, except for the charge of possession of a firearm prohibited, which the trial court dismissed for lack of evidence. On November 22, 2021, the Commonwealth filed an Information against Appellee at both docket numbers. On December 1, 2021, Appellee was formally arraigned on both docket numbers, and the trial court set a scheduling conference for December 21, 2021.

On December 21, 2021, Appellee requested a continuance of the scheduling conference. For lower court docket number 9471-2021, the docket entry specifically indicates the defense requested the continuance for "further investigation. Defense is requesting Discovery. Defense is requesting an Offer." For lower court docket number 9472-2021, the docket entry specifically indicates the defense requested the continuance "for possible non-trial disposition at next listing." The trial court rescheduled the conference for March 16, 2022.

Both parties appeared for the trial scheduling conference on March 16, 2022. As a result of this conference, on March 17, 2022, the trial court filed an order directing that all discovery be completed by December 3, 2022, scheduling a trial readiness conference for December 12, 2022, and scheduling a jury trial to commence for both matters on January 3, 2023.

On December 27, 2022, Appellee filed a motion to dismiss at both lower court docket numbers. Specifically, Appellee averred that more than 365 days of non-excludable time had elapsed for purposes of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A), and the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence. Thus, Appellee sought the dismissal of all charges with prejudice pursuant to Rule 600. On December 28, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Appellee's motions to dismiss.

At the hearing, defense counsel indicated that from December 21, 2021, to March 16, 2022, defense counsel made several requests to the Commonwealth for discovery; however, discovery remained outstanding as of March 16, 2022. N.T., 12/28/22, at 5. Defense counsel further indicated that, on June 6, 2022, the defense sent an email to the Commonwealth requesting discovery; however, the defense received no response. Id. at 6. Defense counsel averred the "automatic run date" for Appellee's two cases was October 5, 2022, but the Commonwealth did not provide discovery until December 2, 2022. Id. Defense counsel argued that "because of the Commonwealth's failure to pass discovery, none of that time could be excluded because their only attempts to pass discovery were made after the run date had passed." Id. at 6-7. Defense counsel contended the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence since it did not provide discovery in a timely manner. Id. at 8.

In response, the Commonwealth indicated that it had been duly diligent in both of Appellee's cases. Specifically, the Commonwealth averred the trial court extended the time for discovery to December 3, 2022, because the jury trial could not be listed until January 3, 2023, due to court congestion, as well as the burden on the jury trial system because of the pandemic. Id. at 9. The Commonwealth noted the trial court set the discovery deadline for December 3, 2022, and the Commonwealth met this deadline by providing discovery on December 2, 2022. Id. at 10.

Moreover, the Commonwealth noted that, because Appellee's cases involved shots fired at police officers, the discovery was "locked in the electronic system by the Philadelphia Police Officers[, who] have to give special permission to people in [the District Attorney's Office] to be able to access [the discovery]." Id. The Commonwealth explained that, after a specific Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") is assigned to a case, the ADA has access to the discovery. Id. at 11. The Commonwealth noted that it informed Appellee of this procedure in an email in February of 2022. Id. Thus, the Commonwealth noted Appellee was put on notice that the Commonwealth did not have access to the discovery, which was in the police's possession, until a specific ADA was assigned to Appellee's cases. Id.

ADA William Sandman testified he was assigned to Appellee's cases on September 29 or 30, 2022, and when he reviewed Appellee's case files in the middle of November of 2022, he asked defense counsel whether she needed discovery. Id. at 11-12. He noted this was "a month and a half out" from when Appellee's jury trial was scheduled to begin. Id. at 12. Defense counsel responded she had not been provided with complete discovery, and, thus, ADA Sandman copied the large electronic files from the police department. Id. On December 2, 2022, he notified defense counsel that the files could be picked up at any time; however, because of the large size of the files, he was unable to successfully send the files to defense counsel through electronic means. Id. at 12-13. ADA Sandman testified: "I complied to the best of my abilities [and with] diligence." Id. at 13. He noted that he copied the files for discovery and had them ready for the defense to retrieve in the time set forth by the trial court in the March 17, 2022, scheduling order. Id.

By orders filed on December 28, 2022, the trial court granted Appellee's motions to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 and dismissed the charges at both lower court docket numbers with prejudice. Specifically, the trial court concluded the Commonwealth had not been duly diligent in providing discovery to Appellee. Id. at 15-17. The Commonwealth filed a notice of appeal at both docket numbers,^[3] and all Pa.R.A.P. 1925 requirements have been met. This Court sua sponte consolidated the Commonwealth's appeals.

On appeal, the Commonwealth sets forth the following issue in its "Statement of the Question Involved" (verbatim):

Did the lower court err by dismissing all charges under Rule 600 where trial was only scheduled beyond the adjusted run date due to the court's own scheduling concerns, where the Commonwealth passed all discovery by the discovery deadline, and where the Commonwealth was trial-ready before the first and only trial date?

Commonwealth's Brief at 4 (suggested answer omitted).

On appeal, the Commonwealth contends the trial court erred in granting Appellee's motions to dismiss at docket numbers 9471-2021 and 9472-2021 pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.

We generally review the trial court's disposition of a Rule 600 motion for an abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Harth, 666 Pa. 300, 252 A.3d 600, 614 n.13 (2021). "An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will…discretion is abused." Commonwealth v. Burno, 638 Pa. 264, 154 A.3d 764, 793 (2017) (citation omitted).

Rule 600 requires that trial "shall commence within 365 days from the date on which the complaint is filed." Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). Known as the mechanical run date that date may be extended under certain circumstances. Commonwealth v. Wendel, 165 A.3d 952, 956-57 (Pa.Super. 2017). When a defendant seeks dismissal based on a violation of Rule...