Com. v. Diaz, H.
2093 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Diaz was arrested Aug 24, 2010, charged with PWID, possession, and conspiracy; non-jury trial held Aug 14, 2012, conviction Nov 29, 2012, sentence 4–8 years plus probation.
- Diaz filed a timely appeal which counsel later withdrew; he then filed a pro se PCRA petition (June 27, 2013), amended in 2015; PCRA court issued Rule 907 notice and dismissed the petition on June 17, 2016.
- Central claim: Rule 600 speedy-trial violation — Diaz contends 721 days elapsed pretrial with 560 days attributable to the Commonwealth; he also asserts ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to raise a Rule 600 challenge.
- Trial court found several multi-month periods were excusable (judicial delay or attributable to co-defendant/defense), reducing Commonwealth-attributable time; mechanical run date was Aug 15, 2011.
- Court calculated excusable/judicial delays (totaling 387 days) plus 157 days conceded as defendant-caused, yielding an adjusted run date of Feb 9, 2013; because trial occurred Aug 14, 2012, Rule 600 was satisfied.
- PCRA court dismissed ineffectiveness claims: trial counsel had no arguable merit failure (because no Rule 600 violation), and appellate-ineffectiveness claim was waived and in any event fails if trial counsel was effective.
Issues
| Issue | Diaz's Argument | Commonwealth's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth violated Pa. R. Crim. P. 600 by causing >365-day delay | 721 days elapsed pretrial; 560 days attributable to Commonwealth; therefore Rule 600 violated | Significant portions were judicial delay or excusable (co-defendant/defense/ court schedule); Commonwealth exercised due diligence | No Rule 600 violation; court attributed 387 days excusable/judicial and 157 defendant-caused; adjusted run date Feb 9, 2013; trial timely on Aug 14, 2012 |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not raising a Rule 600 challenge | Trial counsel should have moved to dismiss under Rule 600 | No arguable merit because Rule 600 was not violated, so counsel not ineffective | Ineffectiveness claim fails for lack of arguable merit |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising Rule 600 on direct appeal | Appellate counsel should have raised speedy-trial issue on appeal | Claim waived (not raised in PCRA) and fails because trial counsel was not ineffective | Claim waived and in any event fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244 (Pa. 2011) (standard for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Roles, 116 A.3d 122 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Rule 600 adjusted run date and excludable/excusable time framework)
- Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874 (Pa. Super. 2013) (definition of adjusted run date and dismissal standard under Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Brown, 875 A.2d 1128 (Pa. Super. 2005) (judicial delay and court-docket congestion can justify excusable time)
- Commonwealth v. Kearse, 890 A.2d 388 (Pa. Super. 2005) (co-defendant continuances excusable when defendant acquiesces)
- Commonwealth v. Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2004) (victim or judicial unavailability may be excusable; Commonwealth readiness considered)
- Commonwealth v. Paddy, 15 A.3d 431 (Pa. 2011) (appellate ineffectiveness tied to arguable merit of trial counsel claim)
- Commonwealth v. Washington, 927 A.2d 586 (Pa. 2007) (issues not raised in PCRA petition are waived)