Commonwealth v. Miskovitch, 64 A.3d 672

Appellant Eric Miskovitch was charged in Westmoreland County for a 2004 robbery and related offenses and later tried in Allegheny County after a Rule 130 transfer.
Trial spanned over five years (arrest 2004; trial 2009) with numerous defense postponements and competency proceedings.
Appellant was repeatedly represented by different attorneys; competency evaluations and delays largely stemmed from defense actions.
Jury convicted him of robbery and receiving stolen property; aggravated assault was acquitted; sentence was 5–10 years.
Appellant raised Rule 600 speedy-trial and Sixth Amendment claims, along with due process, double jeopardy, and venue challenges.
The trial court’s decision denying relief was upheld on all issues on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Rule 600 speedy-trial violation shown?	Miskovitch argues excessive pre-trial delay violated Rule 600.	Commonwealth contends delays were excludable or defense-driven.	No Rule 600 violation; delays attributable to defense and competency proceedings.
Did the five-year pre-trial delay violate the Sixth Amendment?	Speedy-trial rights were violated by prolonged delay.	Delay due to defense competency evaluations and multiple attorneys; no prejudice shown.	No Sixth Amendment violation; delay caused largely by defense actions and competency proceedings.
Did reinstruction on aggravated assault after a robbery verdict infringe due process?	Reinstruction exceeded jury’s request and risked resurrecting robbery case.	Error was harmless; aggravated assault acquitted.	Harmless error; no fundamental misstep requiring reversal.
Was there a double jeopardy violation for prosecutions in different counties?	Westmoreland theft and Allegheny robbery were a single criminal episode.	No single episode; different crimes, witnesses, and burdens; no duplication.	No double jeopardy; separate offenses and prosecutions permitted.
Was venue improperly set in Allegheny County for Westmoreland County offenses?	Procedural venue defect affected defendant’s rights.	Rule 130 transfer proper where same episode occurred in more than one district; prejudice lacking.	Venue transfer proper; no demonstrated prejudice.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (establishes Barker speedy-trial balancing framework)
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (U.S. 1993) (harmless-error review not applicable to improper reasonable-doubt burdening instruction)
Commonwealth v. Wholaver, 989 A.2d 883 (Pa. 2010) (speedy-trial presumptive prejudice and balancing factors)
Commonwealth v. Dixon, 985 A.2d 720 (Pa. 2009) (venue and single-episode considerations in Pa. Supreme Court)
Commonwealth v. Pries, 861 A.2d 951 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Rule 1100/Rule 600 scene; joinder and episode analysis)