Com. v. Ashford, O., Jr., Com. v. Ashford, O., Jr. No. 824 MDA 2016

On January 2, 2015 Officer Carpenter stopped a vehicle driven by Odell Ashford, Jr.; Ashford admitted he had no license and his driving record showed a long‑expired and suspended license. He was charged, including a count for possession of a controlled substance without a prescription.
At a June 15, 2015 pretrial conference defense counsel requested the case be listed for the September 2015 trial term so counsel could obtain proof of a prescription; the court ordered the case listed in September and recorded that Rule 600 time would run against Appellant.
The case did not proceed in September 2015 or at any time before March 3, 2016; on March 3, 2016 the Commonwealth filed a motion to schedule a non‑jury (bench) trial, and the trial was scheduled for April 13, 2016.
Appellant filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 motion to dismiss on April 12, 2016, which the trial court denied immediately before the April 13 bench trial; Appellant was convicted of driving with a suspended license and sentenced.
The Rule 600 statutory 365‑day deadline ran on January 2, 2016; the trial actually began April 13, 2016 (102 days late). The trial court found delays attributable to Appellant and held the Commonwealth exercised due diligence; the Superior Court disagreed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in denying Appellant’s Rule 600 motion by finding the Commonwealth exercised due diligence	Commonwealth argued the period from June 15, 2015 through September term was excludable as delay attributable to Appellant, and that by filing a March 3, 2016 motion to list the case for bench trial it showed due diligence	Ashford argued the delay attributable to his continuance began only on the first day of the next practicable term (July 6, 2015), so the Commonwealth had until March 6, 2016 to try him, and the Commonwealth made no record showing efforts between September 2015 and March 2016	Superior Court vacated the judgment of sentence and discharged Appellant: the court held the trial court miscalculated excludable time and the Commonwealth failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence to bring Appellant to trial

Commonwealth v. Watson, 140 A.3d 696 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard of review and Rule 600 principles)
Commonwealth v. Peterson, 19 A.3d 1131 (Pa. Super. 2011) (Rule 600 purposes and balancing)
Commonwealth v. Wentzel, 641 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1994) (delay attributable to defendant runs from first practicable trial date)
Commonwealth v. Dixon, 140 A.3d 718 (Pa. Super. 2016) (burden on Commonwealth to prove due diligence)
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2012) (due diligence shown by internal tracking systems)
Commonwealth v. Browne, 584 A.2d 902 (Pa. 1990) (failure to show simple office systems undercuts due diligence)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, 852 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2004) (vacatur where Commonwealth failed to carry due diligence burden)
Commonwealth v. Williams, 73 A.3d 609 (Pa. 2013) (appellate courts may affirm on any basis supported by the record)