Com. v. Casasnovas, A.
1604 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 4, 2017Background
- Defendant Andres Casanovas was charged with burglary and criminal trespass after entering the victim’s apartment early morning, punching holes in the bedroom wall; related assault and criminal mischief charges remained pending.
- At the preliminary hearing the victim testified Casanovas entered through an unlocked door without her letting him in, but also testified she had texted an invitation to “punch pillows” earlier that night.
- Casanovas filed a habeas corpus petition the day after arraignment (denied by Judge Kistler), then filed a second habeas corpus nunc pro tunc after receiving a copy of the victim’s text messages months later.
- At the second hearing Judge Grine admitted the translated text message (over an authentication objection) and granted the second habeas petition, dismissing burglary and trespass counts on the ground the texts showed Casanovas had license to enter.
- The Commonwealth appealed, arguing the second petition was untimely, barred by the coordinate-jurisdiction rule, and that a prima facie case remained for burglary and trespass.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Casanovas) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of second habeas petition | Petition filed nine months after arraignment and should be untimely under Pa.R.Crim.P. 579 | Texts were produced Sept. 13, 2016; petition filed eight days later, fitting the rule exception for newly discovered grounds | Court of Appeals: Trial court did not abuse discretion — petition timely because evidence newly produced to defense |
| Application of coordinate-jurisdiction rule | Second judge should not overrule a coordinate judge; prior denial should stand absent intervening change | Text message is newly discovered evidence that materially changes the factual picture, justifying reconsideration | Court of Appeals: Second judge abused discretion; the text message did not represent a substantial change warranting departure from rule |
| Whether habeas relief appropriate based on texts (prima facie case) | Even accepting victim’s testimony and texts, conflicting evidence (timing of message vs. entry) supports a prima facie case and should go to jury | Text message proves license to enter and compels dismissal pretrial | Court of Appeals: Conflicting evidence remained; habeas relief improper — prima facie case existed, so dismissal was erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995) (coordinate-jurisdiction rule and narrow exceptions)
- Goldey v. Trustees of Univ. of Pa., 675 A.2d 264 (Pa. 1996) (later judge should not grant relief where same motion was previously denied absent intervening facts or law)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 402 A.2d 1007 (Pa. 1979) (abuse of discretion where second judge vacates prior order on substantially same evidence)
- Musumeci v. Penn's Landing Corp., 640 A.2d 416 (Pa. Super. 1994) (coordinate jurisdiction rule applies except when newly discovered evidence or law compels different result)
- Commonwealth v. Cooke, 394 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. 1978) (trial court discretion on timeliness of pretrial motions)