Com. v. Morgan, T.
239 A.3d 1132
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2020Background
- Oct. 10, 2008: Terrance Morgan absconded from a work‑release program; Bucks County Sheriff’s Office (BCSO) filed an escape complaint and a warrant issued.
- Oct. 2008: Morgan was arrested in Richmond County, Georgia, on separate homicide/firearm charges; he signed an extradition waiver and Richmond County Sheriff told BCSO it would notify them after adjudication and that BCSO would need to lodge a detainer with GA DOC if sentenced.
- Feb.–July 2010: Morgan was convicted in Georgia and transferred to GA DOC (Valdosta State Prison) to serve a 10–20 year sentence; BCSO received no further updates and did not lodge a detainer with GA DOC for ~2 years.
- Sept. 2012: BCSO contacted Georgia, faxed a detainer to Valdosta State Prison but received no acknowledgement and then took no further action for ~6 years.
- June–Oct. 2018: BCSO re‑initiated contact; GA DOC acknowledged a detainer on June 18, 2018; Morgan was released Oct. 15, 2018 and taken into Bucks County custody Oct. 25, 2018.
- Procedural posture: Morgan moved to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 for lack of due diligence; trial court denied, Morgan was convicted at bench trial, sentenced, and appealed; Superior Court vacated sentence and reversed conviction for Rule 600 violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Morgan’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 motion (speedy‑trial due diligence) | Morgan: BCSO failed to exercise due diligence in securing extradition from Georgia, causing multi‑year delay | Commonwealth/BCSO: initial detainer (Oct. 2008) and reliance on Georgia officials made further efforts futile; defendant was unavailable while incarcerated in GA | Superior Court: Held Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence. Two periods of unexplained delay (2010–2012 and 2012–2018) counted against the Commonwealth; Rule 600 violated; conviction reversed and sentence vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (standard of review and Rule 600 balancing between defendant’s speedy‑trial rights and society’s interest in prosecution)
- Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944 (Pa. 2018) (Rule 600 run‑date computation and adjustments under Rule 600(C))
- Commonwealth v. McNear, 852 A.2d 401 (Pa.Super. 2004) (excludability where out‑of‑state authorities clearly oppose extradition)
- Commonwealth v. R. Booze, 947 A.2d 1287 (Pa.Super. 2008) (incarceration in another state does not automatically render defendant "unavailable"; prosecution must show due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Kubin, 637 A.2d 1025 (Pa.Super. 1994) (failure to follow up on extradition request counts against the Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. J. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263 (Pa.Super. 2008) (detainer vs. extradition and IAD procedures)
- Commonwealth v. Ingram, 591 A.2d 734 (Pa.Super. 1991) (defendant is unavailable only if location/status cannot be discovered by due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Polsky, 426 A.2d 610 (Pa. 1981) (periods of delay caused by defendant may be excluded from speedy‑trial computations)