Commonwealth v. Peterson
19 A.3d 1131
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Commonwealth filed March 21, 2006 complaint charging PWID, firearm without license, possession of substance, paraphernalia, resisting arrest, REAP, harassment.
- Preliminary hearing continued due to unresolved test results; later continuances to retain counsel and for other reasons.
- Appellee failed to appear at an August 21, 2006 hearing; bench warrant issued; later withdrawn when Commonwealth learned of imprisonment.
- Municipal court dismissed the first complaint for lack of prosecution after multiple scheduling issues and officer unavailability.
- Commonwealth re-filed March 19, 2008; preliminary hearing held June 17, 2008; Rule 600 motion filed Sept. 9, 2008; charges dismissed with prejudice Nov. 14, 2008.
- Superior Court reversed, holding Rule 600 run date begins with the second complaint when the Commonwealth was diligent in prosecuting the first complaint; the period between dismissal and re-filing is not tolled under Rule 600 absent evasion intent; case remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due diligence pre-dismissal supports Rule 600 run date from second complaint | Peterson | Peterson | Yes; due diligence pre-dismissal controls |
| Whether delay between dismissal and re-filing tolls Rule 600 run date | Commonwealth | Peterson | No; not tolled when charges were dismissed by a competent authority without evasion intent |
| Whether absence of officer at hearings negates Commonwealth's due diligence | Commonwealth | Peterson | No; diligence requires reliable systems to secure testimony; mere subpoena without proving systems is insufficient |
| What is proper focus in dual-complaint Rule 600 analysis | Commonwealth | Peterson | Focus on diligence prior to first dismissal; run date from second complaint if initial prosecution was diligent |
| Whether Meadius/Surovcik govern diligence after dismissal | Commonwealth | Peterson | Meadius/Surovcik require diligence before withdrawal; here, prosecution showed diligence prior to dismissal; not bound to re-file instantly |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc; Rule 600 considerations; society vs. accused balance)
- Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802 (Pa. 2005) (treatment of two-complaint scenario; diligence before withdrawal)
- Commonwealth v. Surovcik, 933 A.2d 651 (Pa. Super. 2007) (diligence before withdrawal; caution against reading to require diligence post-dismissal)
- Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2008) (distinction between excludable time and excusable delay; joint continuances excludable)
- Commonwealth v. Staten, 950 A.2d 1006 (Pa. Super. 2008) (unavailability of officer beyond Commonwealth control; due diligence assessment)