Commonwealth v. Claffey
80 A.3d 780
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Appellant was convicted of DUI under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 3802(d)(2), failure to drive on the right, and careless driving after a second complaint was filed following habeas relief.
- Initial 2009 complaint led to a October 2009 preliminary hearing with no live expert testimony; a toxicology report suggested impairment could not be precluded but did not opine impairment.
- Appellant sought habeas relief in 2010 alleging insufficient proof of impairment; Commonwealth sought to secure expert testimony and the proceedings were repeatedly continued due to scheduling conflicts.
- Habeas court granted relief, prompting Commonwealth to re-file the charges by a second complaint on June 30, 2010; preliminary hearing was held anew and charges were held for court.
- Rule 600 motion filed June 20, 2011 argued Rule 600 period should run from the first complaint; trial court denied, appellate court ultimately held the period runs from the second complaint, with excludable time for waivers and court scheduling.
- Appellant was tried on November 30, 2011 (518 days after second complaint), sentenced January 23, 2012, and timely direct appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to calculate Rule 600 time (first vs. second complaint) | Appellant argues Rule 600 time runs from the first complaint. | Commonwealth contends time runs from the second complaint given due diligence and circumstances beyond control. | Rule 600 time runs from the second complaint; no error. |
| Was the Commonwealth's prosecution with due diligence under Rule 600? | Appellant claims the Commonwealth failed to prosecute diligently, causing delay. | Commonwealth acted with due diligence; delays were beyond its control and excusable. | Commonwealth acted with due diligence; the aggregate excludable time yields 270 days under Rule 600. |
| Effect of waivers and court scheduling on Rule 600 time | Waivers and court delays improperly inflated time under Rule 600. | Waivers and court scheduling time are excludable and properly accounted for. | Excludable time totals 248 days; remaining 270 days is within 365-day limit. |
| Authority to re-file after habeas relief without president judge approval under Rule 544 | Rule 544 required presidential approval to re-file charges. | No such approval is required; re-filing after habeas relief is permitted. | Re-filing was proper without president judge approval. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 985 A.2d 230 (Pa.Super.2009) (duty to prove impairment case-by-case; expert testimony not always mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Griffith, 613 Pa. 171 (Pa.2011) (Griffith II: expert testimony not universally required for DUI impairment)
- Commonwealth v. Peterson, 19 A.3d 1131 (Pa.Super.2011) (subsequent complaint rule: diligence and timing when re-filing after dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Riley, 19 A.3d 1146 (Pa.Super.2011) (due diligence standard under Rule 600; excusable delays when justified)
- Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A.2d 717 (Pa.Super.2007) (appeal timing and Rule 600 application principles)
- Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa.Super.2005) (Rule 600 grounds for dismissal; interplay with diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Landis, 48 A.3d 432 (Pa.Super.2012) (prima facie case standard at preliminary hearing and habeas considerations)
- Commonwealth v. Carbo, 822 A.2d 60 (Pa.Super.2003) (re-filing after habeas to address evidentiary deficits)
- Commonwealth v. Borrero, 692 A.2d 158 (Pa.Super.1997) (finality of judgment of sentence for direct appeal timing)