Com. v. Diaz, J.
531 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Nov 27, 2017Background
- Jose Diaz was arrested July 2, 2010, and charged after allegedly cutting two people with a box cutter; jury convicted him of two counts of aggravated assault and one PIC offense.
- Commonwealth filed its complaint July 3, 2010; trial began November 29, 2011.
- Diaz received an aggregate sentence of 5½ to 12 years’ incarceration plus 5 years reporting probation; his direct appeal was affirmed by this Court.
- Diaz filed a timely pro se PCRA petition (April 18, 2014); counsel was appointed and submitted a Turner/Finley no‑merit letter; the PCRA court dismissed the petition and permitted counsel to withdraw.
- Diaz claimed (1) a Rule 600 speedy‑trial violation because the Commonwealth failed to show due diligence, and (2) ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to pursue the Rule 600 claim.
- The PCRA court found various periods of delay either excludable (defense continuances) or excusable (administrative/judicial re‑listing and trial court scheduling), concluding the trial occurred within the adjusted run date; the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Diaz's Argument | Commonwealth/Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 600 was violated (speedy trial) | Commonwealth failed to prove due diligence for post‑run date delay | Delays were excusable or excludable (administrative relisting, defense continuances, court scheduling) | No violation; trial commenced within adjusted run date |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to secure dismissal under Rule 600 | Counsel failed to investigate file notations and did not prevent Rule 600 violation | Counsel moved under Rule 600; the continuances were justified/excludable and strategy was reasonable | No ineffectiveness; underlying Rule 600 claim lacked merit |
| Whether appellate/PCRA counsel was ineffective for not raising Rule 600 on direct appeal | Appellate counsel should have raised Rule 600 | Rule 600 claim is meritless because adjusted run date controlled; counsel not ineffective for not raising meritless claim | No ineffectiveness; PCRA denial affirmed |
| Whether any file notation errors (wrong attorney name/no earliest possible date) warrant relief | Quarter sessions file errors show lack of due diligence | Court's recollection and record show priority date assigned; mistaken name does not affect diligence | No relief; clerical errors immaterial to due diligence determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc) (explains mechanical vs. adjusted run dates and excusable delay/due diligence framework under Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188 (Pa. Super. 2007) (judicial delay can justify Rule 600 extensions)
- Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2013) (administrative reorganization of court system can be excusable delay)
- Commonwealth v. Rivera, 10 A.3d 1276 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for proving ineffective assistance under PCRA)
- Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) (procedures governing appointed counsel’s no‑merit/withdrawal submissions)
- Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedural standards for no‑merit letters in collateral counsel representation)