Commonwealth v. Dixon
140 A.3d 718
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Victim Hasan Sampson was shot during an attempted robbery on November 19, 2010; police recovered a .9mm shell casing and later identified Joey I. Dixon as the shooter.
- Initial criminal complaint (Nov. 23, 2010) charged Dixon with multiple offenses; the Commonwealth twice withdrew the assault-related charges (leaving a Section 6105 weapons charge).
- Sampson repeatedly failed to appear at preliminary hearings; on Feb. 1, 2011 he was in the courthouse but left and expressed reluctance/fear to testify.
- Commonwealth re-filed the assault charges on Dec. 20, 2012 (after ADA reassignment and a Grand Jury indictment on Jan. 25, 2013); Dixon later tried and convicted of robbery, aggravated assault, PIC, and weapons offenses.
- Dixon moved to dismiss under Pa. R. Crim. P. 600 for violation of the 365-day speedy-trial rule, arguing the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence in producing Sampson; the trial court denied the motion and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 600 time runs from the first complaint or from the later re-filing when the Commonwealth withdrew charges | Commonwealth: time runs from the Dec. 20, 2012 re-filing because it did not intentionally evade Rule 600 and was diligent while the prior complaint was pending | Dixon: time should run from Feb. 2011 (earlier filings); Commonwealth was not diligent in producing Sampson between Feb. 2011 and Sept. 2012, so re-filing cannot restart the clock | Court held time began with the Dec. 20, 2012 re-filing; Commonwealth acted with due diligence while complaints were pending, so withdrawal period is irrelevant to Rule 600 calculation |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802 (Pa. 2005) (re-filing cannot reset Rule 600 where prosecution intentionally evaded or failed to exercise due diligence on initial complaint)
- Commonwealth v. Peterson, 19 A.3d 1131 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) (when prosecution was diligent on initial complaint, Rule 600 time for subsequent complaint begins at re-filing)
- Commonwealth v. Claffey, 80 A.3d 780 (Pa. Super. 2013) (if Commonwealth was diligent on first complaint, time between dismissal and re-filing is irrelevant to Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 54 A.3d 908 (Pa. Super. 2012) (appellate review of Rule 600 denial limited to record from Rule 600 hearing; factual findings viewed in light most favorable to Commonwealth)