Com. v. Jones, J.
Com. v. Jones, J. No. 1495 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Apr 24, 2017Background
- Complaint filed Nov. 29, 2012 charging Jonathon Duke Jones with two counts of DUI and related offenses.
- Jones failed to appear at the July 23, 2013 call; the court issued a bench warrant and then vacated it by order dated Aug. 1, 2013 directing scheduling for plea court.
- The court administrator did not receive the Aug. 1, 2013 order due to a clerical/basket-handling error; the matter was not placed back on the court calendar until May 20, 2014 (292-day gap).
- Jones filed a Rule 600 motion to dismiss on June 2, 2014; the trial court held a Rule 600 hearing and denied the motion on Jan. 21, 2015, finding the delay was clerical and outside the Commonwealth’s control; an eight-day period after Jones’s failure to appear was excluded as his fault.
- Non-jury trial in March 2016 resulted in convictions for DUI and failing to yield; sentencing occurred Aug. 30, 2016; appeal nunc pro tunc was permitted and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 600 requires dismissal for failure to commence trial within 365 days | Commonwealth: delays caused by court administration and defendant’s failure to appear are excludable; adjusted run date extended | Jones: was not brought to trial within 365 days from complaint; Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence | Affirmed. Court held the 292-day clerical delay was attributable to the court (not Commonwealth misconduct) and 8 days were excluded for Jones’s failure to appear, so adjusted run date had not passed when dismissal was sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2013) (framework for Rule 600 run date, excludable delays, and due diligence analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Riley, 19 A.3d 1146 (Pa. Super. 2011) (administrative/judicial delays generally excusable under Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Baird, 975 A.2d 1113 (Pa. 2009) (delay caused by defendant’s willful failure to appear is excludable)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 919 A.2d 229 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Rule 600 construed to balance speedy trial rights and society’s interest; focus on Commonwealth’s stewardship)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc) (judicial delay may justify extending the period for trial)