Commonwealth v. White

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. KWAMAINE WHITE, Appellant

J-S61024-18

No. 2994 EDA 2016

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FEBRUARY 19, 2019

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence May 23, 2016

In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0005889-2014

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., and PANELLA, J.

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.:

Kwamaine White appeals from the judgment of sentence of fifteen to forty years of imprisonment imposed following his convictions for robbery, conspiracy, simple assault, and theft by unlawful taking. Specifically, Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. Upon review, we vacate Appellant's judgment of sentence and remand for further proceedings.

Two men robbed Matthew McTeague at gunpoint on May 21, 2013, in Philadelphia County, forcing Mr. McTeague to drive them to an ATM to withdraw money from his account. Appellant's fingerprints were recovered from Mr. McTeague's vehicle, and Mr. McTeague identified Appellant from a photo array. On June 25, 2013, a criminal complaint was filed against Appellant and an arrest warrant issued.

In the meantime, Appellant had been arrested in an unrelated case, and was in custody at SCI-Graterford. Approximately one week later, Detective Timothy Tague of the Philadelphia Police Department's Northeast Detectives Division was assigned to bring Appellant to Philadelphia for processing in the instant case, and secured a writ of habeas corpus for that purpose. When Detective Tague contacted Graterford "maybe one or two months after [he] was handed the warrant package," he learned that Appellant had been transferred to SCI-Camp Hill. N.T. Rule 600 Hearing, 3/15/15, at 27.

As Detective Tague only executes arrest warrants on state prisoners when they are located at Graterford, he followed his procedure of contacting "a woman in Harrisburg" about having Appellant transferred back to Graterford and then obtaining a writ of habeas corpus to bring him to Philadelphia. Id. at 20. Detective Tague, whose primary responsibility is to serve warrants within the Northeast Division of Philadelphia on a daily basis, makes trips to Graterford once every three months, on average, and requests only six inmates for each trip, as he "only ha[s] one wagon, and we can't transport more than six at a time." Id. at 21. After contacting the state two more times after the initial call to Graterford, Detective Tague "eventually" arrested Appellant at Graterford on March 10, 2014, and brought him to Philadelphia. Id. at 21-22.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled for March 25, 2014, but the complainant was unavailable. The case was held for court following a hearingon May 20, 2014, and Appellant was formally arraigned on June 10, 2014. At conferences held on July 9, 2014, July 22, 2014, and September 24, 2014, discovery was outstanding. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 on September 25, 2014. Therein he contended that the first trial listing of the case, for March 9, 2015, was 247 days late under the Rule, and that the Commonwealth had failed to exercise due diligence in arresting Appellant and providing discovery materials. The trial court denied Appellant's motion after a hearing on May 15, 2014. Trial was scheduled and continued on subsequent dates due to the request of the defense or the unavailability of the court, and eventually commenced on March 30, 2016.

Appellant was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Appellant filed a timely post-sentence motion, which the trial court denied. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and both Appellant and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

Appellant presents the following question for this Court's consideration: "Was not [A]ppellant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 improperly denied where [A]ppellant was tried long after the run date and the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence throughout the case, as it failed to secure [A]ppellant's presence and failed to provide discovery in a timely manner?" Appellant's brief at 3.

We begin with a review of the applicable legal principles.

In evaluating Rule 600 issues, our standard of review of a trial court's decision is whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law, upon facts and circumstances judicially before the court, after hearing and due consideration. 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, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused.

The proper scope of review is limited to the evidence on the record of the Rule 600 evidentiary hearing, and the findings of the trial court. An appellate court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

Additionally, when considering the trial court's ruling, 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.

Commonwealth v. Bethea, 185 A.3d 364, 370 (Pa.Super. 2018) (cleaned up).

Pursuant to Rule 600, a defendant's trial must occur within 365 days of the filing of the criminal complaint. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a). That one-year-anniversary has been termed the "mechanical run date." See, e.g.,Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097, 1102 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc). In calculating whether the trial commenced within the requisite time, "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." Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(C)(1). However, "[a]ny other periods of delay shall be excluded from the computation." Id. The date arrived at after excluding such periods of delay has been termed the "adjusted run date."¹ See Ramos, supra at 1102.

The criminal complaint was filed in this case on June 25, 2013. Hence, the mechanical run date was June 25, 2014. Appellant's trial did not commence until March 30, 2016, when the jury was sworn. The trial court found that the Commonwealth exercised due diligence throughout the proceedings, meaning that none of the periods of delay was included in the computation, and trial commenced within the adjusted run date. See N.T. Rule 600 Hearing, 3/15/15, at 46.

On appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court's findings for the periods both before and after he was arrested. Specifically, Appellant contends thatthe Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence in effectuating his arrest, and that post-arrest delays caused by the Commonwealth's failure to provide discovery and the unavailability of Mr. McTeague should not have been excluded from the computation. Appellant's brief at 6-7.

The first and largest single period of delay was that between the filing of the complaint on June 25, 2013, and Appellant's arrest on March 10, 2014. Such time is excluded from the Rule 600 calculation if police exercised due diligence in ascertaining the whereabouts of the defendant and apprehending him. Commonwealth v. Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234, 1241 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en banc). "The Commonwealth has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence throughout the prosecution." Commonwealth v. McCarthy, 180 A.3d 368, 375 (Pa.Super. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted).

In determining whether the police acted with due diligence, a balancing process must be employed where the court, using a common sense approach, examines the activities of the police and balances this against the interest of the accused in receiving a fair trial. The actions must be judged by what was done, not by what was not done. In addition, the efforts need only be reasonable; lack of due diligence should not be found simply because other options were available or, in hindsight, would have been more productive.

Commonwealth v. Ingram, 591 A.2d 734, 737 (Pa.Super. 1991).²

In opposing Appellant's Rule 600 motion, the Commonwealth offered the testimony of Detective Tague concerning the efforts he made to execute the arrest warrant at Graterford. As detailed above, he waited one or two months after receiving the warrant before he attempted to arrest Appellant. Upon discovering that Appellant was no longer at Graterford, Detective Tague contacted a woman in Harrisburg, twice over the course of the next six or seven months, to seek Appellant's transfer back to Graterford, finally effectuating the arrest 258 days after the complaint was filed.

The trial court found that, through Detective Tague's testimony, the Commonwealth established due diligence. The trial court explicitly indicated that the Transportation Procedure for State Prisoners legislation ("the Act") was...