Commonwealth v. Davis

279 A.3d 1268 (Table)

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania

v.Jajuan Demar DAVIS, Appellant

No. 574 WDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed: May 20, 2022

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:

Appellant, Jajuan Demar Davis, appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of 18 to 36 months’ incarceration imposed by the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County following a jury trial at which he was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a small amount of marijuana, and operating a vehicle without a license plate light.¹ After careful review, we affirm Appellant's convictions and judgment of sentence for carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a small amount of marijuana, and operating a vehicle without a license plate light, but vacate his conviction and judgment of sentence for possession of a controlled substance.

This case arises out of a traffic stop that occurred on September 22, 2017 at approximately 3:00 a.m. when a state trooper observed a vehicle drive by with no light illuminating its license plate. Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 2; N.T. Suppression Hearing at 4-6, 11, 15-17. The trooper followed the vehicle, which was being driven by Appellant, to confirm that the license plate was not illuminated and after confirming this, had Appellant pull over to the side of the roadway. Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 2; N.T. Suppression Hearing at 5-7, 11, 15. The trooper approached the passenger side of the vehicle and, when Appellant rolled down the window, the trooper smelled a strong odor of alcohol and an odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 2; N.T. Suppression Hearing at 6-7, 13, 17-18. The trooper asked Appellant to come out of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests and observed a handgun wedged between the driver's seat and the console when the Appellant exited the vehicle. Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 2; N.T. Suppression Hearing at 7-9, 20-22. The trooper then frisked Appellant to determine that Appellant had no other weapon and conducted field sobriety tests. Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 2; N.T. Suppression Hearing at 8-9, 12, 14. Because the field sobriety tests showed several indicators of impairment and Appellant smelled of alcohol even away from the vehicle, the trooper placed the Appellant under arrest for driving under the influence (DUI). Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 2; N.T. Suppression Hearing at 9-10, 14, 22-23. After arresting Appellant, the trooper searched Appellant again and found a baggie of cocaine in his pants pocket. Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 2; N.T. Suppression Hearing at 10, 14. The trooper then searched the vehicle and found a small amount of marijuana inside the vehicle and another baggie of cocaine in the gas cap. Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 2; N.T. Suppression Hearing at 13-14.

On August 16, 2018, Appellant was charged with carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (PWID), possession of a controlled substance, possession of a small amount of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, DUI, and the summary offenses of driving on a suspended license and operating a vehicle without a license plate light. Criminal Complaint. Appellant was arrested on those charges on August 24, 2018. Docket Entries at 1. Appellant filed a motion to suppress on September 28, 2020, in which he challenged the traffic stop and asserted that police were required to obtain warrant before searching Appellant's vehicle. The trial court, on February 4, 2021, held a hearing on the motion to suppress at which the trooper who stopped Appellant's vehicle testified, and denied the motion to suppress on March 17, 2021.

This case was tried to a jury from May 3 to May 4, 2021. On April 30, 2021, before the start of trial, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss all charges with prejudice on the ground that the Commonwealth failed to bring him to trial within 365 days as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. The trial court held a hearing on this motion on May 3, 2021 before trial commenced and denied the motion to dismiss. N.T. Rule 600 Hearing at 29.

On May 4, 2021, the jury convicted Appellant of carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of a small amount of marijuana, and acquitted him of possession of drug paraphernalia and DUI. Jury Verdict Forms. The jury deadlocked on the PWID charge and the trial court declared a mistrial on that charge. 5/4/21 Trial Court Order.² On the two summary offense charges, the trial court found Appellant guilty of operating a vehicle without a license plate light and acquitted Appellant of driving on a suspended license. Trial Court Non-Jury Verdict Orders. The trial court sentenced Appellant to 18 to 36 months’ imprisonment for the carrying a firearm without a license conviction and a concurrent term of 6 to 12 months’ imprisonment for possession of a controlled substance and imposed no further penalty for possession of a small amount of marijuana and operating a vehicle without a license plate light. Sentencing Orders. This timely appeal followed.

Appellant presents the following two issues for our review:

1. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress?

2. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's Rule 600 Motion?

Appellant's Brief at 11 (suggested answers omitted). We address Appellant's second issue first.

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 requires that the Commonwealth bring a defendant to trial within 365 days from the date on which the criminal complaint was filed. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a) ; Commonwealth v. Barbour , 189 A.3d 944, 947 (Pa. 2018). Rule 600 provides that in determining whether the 365-day period has expired, "periods of delay at any stage of the proceedings caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has failed to exercise due diligence shall be included in the computation of the time within which trial must commence" and that "[a]ny other periods of delay shall be excluded from the computation." Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1) ; see also Commonwealth v. Harth , 252 A.3d 600, 615 (Pa. 2021).

If the defendant is not brought to trial within that period, he may file a motion at any time before trial requesting dismissal of the charges against him with prejudice. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(1) ; Harth , 252 A.3d at 615. When such a motion is filed, the trial court is required to conduct a hearing and identify each period of delay and attribute it to the responsible party to adjust the 365-day period and determine the date by which the defendant must be tried. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(1) ; Barbour , 189 A.3d at 947. If the trial court finds that the defendant was not brought to trial within Rule 600 ’s time limit, it must dismiss the charges and discharge the defendant. Harth , 252 A.3d at 615.

For periods of delay not caused by the defendant, the burden is on the Commonwealth to show by a preponderance of the evidence that it acted with due diligence to bring the defendant to trial within Rule 600 ’s time limit. Harth , 252 A.3d at 617-18 ; Commonwealth v. Thompson , 136 A.3d 178, 182-83 (Pa. Super. 2016). Where the record shows that the Commonwealth had not complied with its discovery obligations during periods of judicial delay, those periods of judicial delay are not excludable from the Rule 600 calculation. Harth , 252 A.3d at 619-22.

We review a trial court's denial of a Rule 600 motion to dismiss for abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Leaner , 202 A.3d 749, 765-66 (Pa. Super. 2019) ; Commonwealth v. Bethea , 185 A.3d 364, 370 (Pa. Super. 2018) ; Thompson , 136 A.3d at 182. In addition, when considering whether dismissal is required under Rule 600,

this Court is not permitted to ignore the dual purpose behind Rule [600]. Rule [600] serves two equally important functions: (1) the protection of the accused's speedy trial rights, and (2) the protection of society. In determining whether an accused's right to a speedy trial has been violated, consideration must be given to society's right to effective prosecution of criminal cases, both to restrain those guilty of crime and to deter those contemplating it. However, the administrative mandate of Rule [600] was not designed to insulate the criminally accused from good faith prosecution delayed through no fault of the Commonwealth.

So long as there has been no misconduct on the part of the Commonwealth in an effort to evade the fundamental speedy trial rights of an accused, Rule [600] must be construed in a manner consistent with society's right to punish and deter crime. In considering [these] matters ..., courts must carefully factor into the ultimate equation not only the prerogatives of the individual accused, but the collective right of the community to vigorous law enforcement as well.

Bethea , 185 A.3d at 370 (quoting Commonwealth v. Wendel , 165 A.3d 952 (Pa. Super. 2017) ) (brackets and ellipsis in original) (emphasis omitted).

Here, the criminal complaint was filed on August 16, 2018 and Appellant's trial began on May 3, 2021, 991 days after the criminal complaint was filed. The trial court found, however, that a total of 639 days, consisting of 35 days in 2018, 116 days in 2019 and all of 2020 and of 2021 up to the May 3, 2021 date of trial were excludable time and that the commencement of his trial was therefore within Rule 600 ’s time limit. Trial Court Opinion, 6/30/21, at 5-7. The trial court's findings that at least 630 of those days of delay were excludable are supported by the record.

The record shows that Appellant caused a delay of 26 days in 2018, from November 14, 2018 when he failed to appear for his preliminary hearing until he was apprehended on a bench warrant on December 10, 2018 and again released on bail. N.T. Rule 600 Hearing at 10, 21-22, 25; 11/19/18 Bench...