Commonwealth v. Colon
87 A.3d 352
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Complaint charging Colon with forgery, identity-related offenses filed October 19, 2009; trial did not occur until October 15, 2012 (1092 days post‑complaint).
- Trooper Scott investigated after PennDOT records and license photos suggested Colon’s image appeared on another person’s license; this led to the criminal complaint.
- Colon was incarcerated on other charges when the complaint was filed; the Commonwealth knew his location in a state correctional institution.
- The Commonwealth presented no evidence it attempted to secure Colon’s presence or otherwise sought trial within the Rule 600 mechanical period; asserted but unproven actions (e.g., faxing complaint, lodging detainer) were noted.
- Colon requested continuances and changed counsel in 2011–2012, but those requests occurred after the 365‑day run date and do not excuse the pre‑run‑date delay.
- Trial court denied Colon’s Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 motion; the appellate court reversed, finding the Commonwealth failed to show due diligence and ordering dismissal and discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 was violated when trial began 1092 days after complaint | Colon: Commonwealth failed to commence trial within 365 days and did not exercise due diligence; dismissal required | Commonwealth: asserted delays caused by detention logistics and later defense continuances; pointed to purported efforts (e.g., detainer, fax) | Reversed — Rule 600 violation; Commonwealth failed to prove due diligence; dismissal required |
| Whether continuances/defense conduct excuse pre‑run‑date delay | Colon: defense continuances occurred after the run date and cannot cure earlier delay | Commonwealth: defense continuances and change of counsel justify later scheduling | Held for Colon — those defense delays post‑run date are irrelevant to the missed mechanical run date |
| Whether defendant waived speedy‑trial claim by not earlier objecting | Colon: no duty to object to scheduling beyond Rule 600 period absent acceptance of delay | Commonwealth: argued delay objections were untimely | Held for Colon — failure to object earlier does not bar Rule 600 relief absent approval of delay |
| Whether constitutional speedy‑trial (Barker) analysis is required | Colon: Rule 600 violation alone warrants dismissal | Commonwealth: urged assessment under Barker balancing | Held: court need not reach Barker; Rule 600 dismissal proper when Commonwealth fails to show due diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (established four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2012) (discusses Rule 600 purpose and due diligence standard)
- Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 665 A.2d 427 (Pa. 1995) (two‑step speedy‑trial analysis: Rule 600 then constitutional inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Goldman, 70 A.3d 874 (Pa.Super. 2013) (mechanical run date and exclusions explained)
- Commonwealth v. Kearse, 890 A.2d 388 (Pa.Super. 2005) (Rule 600 relief can be granted without a separate Barker showing)
- Commonwealth v. Pichini, 454 A.2d 609 (Pa.Super. 1982) (Commonwealth must show efforts to secure incarcerated defendant when complaint filed)
- Commonwealth v. Sloan, 67 A.3d 1249 (Pa.Super. 2013) (due diligence is fact‑specific; Commonwealth bears burden of proof)