Commonwealth v. Ridley

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TERRENCE L. RIDLEY Appellant

J-S40044-20

No. 3244 EDA 2019

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

APRIL 12, 2021

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 11, 2019

In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-09-CR-0005285-2018

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., KING, J., and COLINS, J.^*

MEMORANDUM BY COLINS, J.:

This matter is an appeal by Appellant, Terrence L. Ridley, from the judgment of sentence imposed following his convictions for Drug Delivery Resulting in Death, Conspiracy to Commit Drug Delivery Resulting in Death, Manufacture, Delivery, or Possession with Intent to Manufacture or Deliver a Controlled Substance (PWID), Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, and Involuntary Manslaughter.¹ This appeal is before us a second time following a remand to the trial court for a supplemental opinion making findings as to the periods of pretrial delay that are excludable in determining whether dismissal of the charges against Appellant was required by Rule 600 of thePennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure for failure to bring Appellant to trial within 365 days. Also before the Court is an application for reargument filed by Appellant. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate Appellant's PWID conviction for lack of jurisdiction, but deny the application for reargument and affirm Appellant's other convictions and judgment of sentence.

As we set forth in our prior memorandum decision, this case arises out of the March 22, 2018 fentanyl overdose death of Amanda Risko. Appellant was convicted of the above offenses following a bench trial. The trial court found the following facts:

Risko had just completed ... drug treatment at a local drug rehabilitation center and was released on March 21, 2018. That same day, immediately upon release from the rehabilitation center, Risko contacted Appellant's co-defendant, Michael Santangelo, to get him to reach out to Appellant to buy fentanyl for her. Santangelo had been buying fentanyl consistently from Appellant for months prior to March 21, 2018. Both Risko and Santangelo were very familiar with the quality of the fentanyl they had previously obtained from Appellant and were impressed with the potency of the particular brand of fentanyl which was packaged and identified on the street as "Rolex" brand. At Risko's request, Santangelo made contact with Appellant on March 21, 2018; purchased the fentanyl with money provided by Risko and delivered the fentanyl to second co-defendant of Appellant and paramour of Risko, Ronald Filderman, who ultimately delivered the drugs to Risko. Filderman was present with Risko when she used some of the drugs provided by Appellant and additional bags of the "Appellant provided" fentanyl was [sic] left with Risko when Filderman left the residence the next morning. ... [U]pon return to the residence, Filderman found Risko dead in her bed, it now being March 22nd.

Trial Court Opinion, 1/7/20, at 2-3 (record citations omitted) (quotation marks in original). Risko and Santangelo lived in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, andAppellant lived in Trenton, New Jersey. Id. at 3. Santangelo purchased the drugs that Risko consumed from Appellant in Trenton, New Jersey and brought them back to Risko and Filderman in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. N.T. Trial, 8/27/19, at 158-65, 185-86; Commonwealth Ex. 15. Risko ingested the drugs in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and died in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Trial Court Opinion, 1/7/20, at 12-13. After Risko's death, Santangelo cooperated on April 3, 2018 in a controlled drug buy in which he bought "Rolex" fentanyl from Appellant in Trenton, New Jersey. Id. at 3-4.

Appellant was charged on July 12, 2018 with Drug Delivery Resulting in Death and other offenses relating to the March 21, 2018 drug sale and Risko's death, and was arrested on July 13, 2018. Criminal Complaint; N.T. Trial, 8/28/19, at 17-18. Appellant's trial was originally scheduled for January 28, 2019, but that trial date was cancelled on January 4, 2019 and no new trial date was set at that time. Pretrial Ex. 1, Secure Docket Entries at 1, 5-6. On January 25, 2019, Appellant filed a motion for release on nominal bail pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(B) because he had been held in pretrial incarceration for over 180 days. Following a hearing on February 1, 2019, Appellant was released on nominal bail with GPS monitoring. On March 29, 2019, Appellant's trial was scheduled for June 25, 2019 as a jury trial. Pretrial Ex. 1, Secure Docket Entries at 8.

On April 4, 2019, Appellant filed a petition for habeas corpus asserting, inter alia, lack of jurisdiction. The Commonwealth filed a motion on April 18,2019 to allow evidence of the April 3, 2018 controlled buy to be admitted at Appellant's trial pursuant to Pa.R.E. 404 and Appellant opposed this motion. In addition, Appellant filed an omnibus pre-trial motion on April 25, 2019. Following hearings on these motions, the trial court, on May 1, 2019, granted the Commonwealth's motion to admit the controlled buy, denied Appellant's petition for habeas corpus, and resolved all other outstanding motions. N.T. Pre-Trial Conference, 5/1/19, at 3-7, 72-85. On June 24, 2019, the Commonwealth requested a continuance of the June 25, 2019 trial date because the prosecutor was still trying a case before another judge and Appellant did not object to that continuance. N.T. Trial, 8/26/19, at 23-24; Pretrial Ex. 1, Secure Docket Entries at 11.

Appellant's trial did not begin until August 26, 2019. This trial date was set by the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas Court Administration after the continuance of the June 25 date was requested. Trial Court Supplemental Opinion at 7-8, 10-11; N.T. Trial, 8/26/19, at 25-27. On the morning of August 26, 2019, before trial started, 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(A). The trial court heard from the prosecutor and Appellant's counsel concerning the reasons for delay of the trial date and denied Appellant's motion to dismiss. N.T. Trial, 8/26/19, at 5-38. Following that ruling, Appellant waived his right to jury trial and a bench trial was held from August 26 to August 29, 2019.Before Appellant's trial commenced, the Commonwealth and defendants Santangelo and Filderman jointly requested a continuance of the cases against them, which the trial court granted, id. at 3-5, and Santangelo and Filderman, both of who testified as Commonwealth witnesses against Appellant, were not tried with Appellant.

On September 5, 2019, the trial court found Appellant guilty of Drug Delivery Resulting in Death, Conspiracy to Commit Drug Delivery Resulting in Death, PWID, Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, and Involuntary Manslaughter. On October 11, 2019, the trial court sentenced Appellant to 6 to 12 years' incarceration for Drug Delivery Resulting in Death and imposed no further penalty for the other offenses. No post-sentence motions were filed. Appellant filed this timely appeal from the judgment of sentence on November 8, 2019.

Appellant presented the following issues for our review:

A. The trial court abused its discretion in granting the Commonwealth's pre-trial motion to introduce subsequent bad acts [the controlled drug buy].

B. Did the trial court act erroneously in failing to dismiss several charges [PWID and Criminal Use of a Communication Facility] based on lack of jurisdiction?

C. Did the trial court erred [sic] in denying Appellant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600?

D. Did the trial court err by finding Appellant Ridley guilty of all charges when the evidence was not sufficient because the testimony from the two co-[defendants] was inconsistent and unreliable.

Appellant's Brief at 4 (unnecessary capitalization and trial court answers omitted). On November 10, 2020, we issued a memorandum decision in which we rejected Appellant's first and fourth issues, remanded the case to the trial court for a supplemental opinion on Appellant's third issue and deferred consideration of Appellant's second issue.

On January 5, 2021, the trial court filed its supplemental opinion. In addition, on January 12, 2021, Appellant filed an application for reargument with respect to this Court's ruling on his fourth issue, asserting that under a subsequent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision the Commonwealth's evidence was insufficient to support his Drug Delivery Resulting in Death conviction. There are therefore three matters now before this Court: 1) whether dismissal of all of the charges against Appellant was required by Rule 600 for failure to bring Appellant to trial within 365 days; 2) whether the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the PWID and Criminal Use of a Communication Facility charges for lack of jurisdiction; and 3) Appellant's application for reargument on the issue of sufficiency of the evidence with respect to his Drug Delivery Resulting in Death conviction.

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, "periodsof 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).

If the defendant is not brought to trial within 365 days, 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). When such a motion is filed, the trial court is required...