Com. v. Charowsky, R.
9 MDA 2016
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 17, 2016Background
- Appellant was arrested on February 16, 2014, and a criminal complaint was filed on August 4, 2014.
- Appellant was arraigned on August 5, 2014, approximately six months after arrest.
- Appellant pled guilty to DUI (highest rate) and driving with suspended, receiving concurrent sentences.
- Appellant filed a timely PCRA petition challenging the conviction and sentence.
- PCRA court denied relief after a hearing; Appellant challenges trial counsel’s effectiveness for not challenging Rule 519(B)(2) procedures.
- Rule 519(B)(2) requires a complaint to be filed within five days after release following a warrantless arrest; prejudice must be shown for delay to be improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging Rule 519(B)(2) timing. | Charowsky claims prejudice from delay in filing a complaint affected defense. | State argues no prejudice shown; delay lacked demonstrable impact on defense. | No prejudice shown; ineffective assistance claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 84 A.3d 294 (Pa. 2014) (standard for reviewing PCRA factual findings; prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Reyes-Rodriguez, 111 A.3d 775 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Pierce test for ineffective assistance (three-prong) in PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 966 A.2d 523 (Pa. 2009) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Commonwealth v. Wolgemuth, 737 A.2d 757 (Pa. Super. 1999) (prejudice required for Rule 519 timing issues)