248 A.3d 1285
Pa. Super. Ct.2021Background:
- Criminal complaint filed against Matthew Wiggins on January 11, 2018; he later pled guilty to stalking on January 28, 2019 ( >365 days after filing).
- Case was placed on multiple trial lists during 2018; Wiggins accepted a negotiated guilty plea rather than proceed to trial.
- Court sentenced Wiggins to time served (7 days) to seven years; no post-sentence motion or direct appeal was filed.
- Wiggins filed a timely pro se PCRA petition, amended to allege plea counsel ineffective for failing to file a Rule 600 motion.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing, finding 195 excludable days and that the Commonwealth did not violate Rule 600.
- Superior Court affirmed, holding Wiggins failed to plead facts creating a genuine dispute about due diligence or arguable merit of a Rule 600 claim.
Issues:
| Issue | Wiggins' Argument | Commonwealth / PCRA Court Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a Rule 600 motion when the plea occurred >365 days after complaint | Counsel’s refusal to file Rule 600 motion forced plea; PCRA hearing needed to develop record showing Rule 600 violation and lack of Commonwealth due diligence | Record shows 195 excludable days; Wiggins failed to allege facts showing Commonwealth lacked due diligence or that counsel had no reasonable basis; no genuine material dispute requiring a hearing | Affirmed: no hearing; counsel not shown ineffective because Wiggins failed to plead arguable Rule 600 claim or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Mason, 130 A.3d 601 (Pa. 2015) (standard of review for PCRA dismissal and denial of evidentiary hearing)
- Commonwealth v. Presley, 193 A.3d 436 (Pa. Super. 2018) (ineffective assistance standard and burden on appellant)
- Commonwealth v. Maddrey, 205 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2019) (prejudice established where counsel fails to pursue a meritorious Rule 600 claim that would entitle defendant to discharge)
- Commonwealth v. Mills, 162 A.3d 323 (Pa. 2017) (distinguishes judicial delay from natural progression of case for Rule 600 purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (Commonwealth bears burden to prove due diligence under Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 87 A.3d 352 (Pa. Super. 2014) (failure to commence trial within 365 days is technical Rule 600 violation; Commonwealth must show due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Natividad, 938 A.2d 310 (Pa. 2007) (PCRA petitioner must develop ineffectiveness claims with factual detail)
- Commonwealth v. Jones, 942 A.3d 903 (Pa. Super. 2008) (no absolute right to an evidentiary hearing on a PCRA petition)