Commonwealth v. Plowden
157 A.3d 933
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Charges (aggravated assault, drug and firearms offenses) filed against Tyshawn Plowden in Cambria County in November 2013.
- Plowden was granted nominal bail ($1.00) on June 19, 2014; he was extradited/released to New York custody in early July 2014 and remained incarcerated in New York.
- Cambria County detective Lia DeMarco began extrication efforts and formally initiated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD) process on October 9, 2014; earlier communications occurred in July but no stay of extradition was requested in July.
- New York authorities delayed: late service of IAD paperwork, scheduling of a Cuyler hearing, and (per New York’s requirement) a Governor’s Warrant at one stage, prolonging the transfer process.
- Rule 600 (365-day) run date was stipulated as December 27, 2014; Plowden’s trial was scheduled for January 8, 2015 with planned transport January 7, 2015.
- Trial court granted Plowden’s Rule 600 motion and dismissed with prejudice for lack of Commonwealth due diligence; the Superior Court (en banc) reversed and remanded, holding IAD-related delay from October 9, 2014 to January 7, 2015 was excludable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Plowden) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Commonwealth exercised due diligence under Rule 600 to procure Plowden from NY | Commonwealth: its formal IAD request on Oct 9 and continued communications show due diligence; delays after Oct 9 were beyond its control and thus excludable | Plowden: Commonwealth had notice after nominal bail (June 19) and failed to act (did not request a stay or promptly secure return), so the pre-Oct 9 delay and subsequent failures show lack of due diligence | Held: The court found Commonwealth lacked diligence from July–Oct 9 but that the IAD process from Oct 9, 2014 to Jan 7, 2015 was pursued and delays were beyond Commonwealth control; that period is excludable |
| Whether time from Oct 9, 2014 to Jan 7, 2015 is excludable under Rule 600 | Commonwealth: this 91-day period (including Oct 9 IAD start) should be excluded because it followed diligent steps and was obstructed by NY | Plowden: contesting extradition and Commonwealth’s earlier inaction do not make the later time excludable; Commonwealth had systems/resources to learn of pending charges earlier | Held: Time from Oct 9 to Jan 7 is excludable; even considering shorter subsets of NY-caused delay (e.g., service and Cuyler scheduling), enough days are excludable to push Rule 600 beyond the dismissal date |
| Whether initial allowance of extradition in July 2014 is fatal to Commonwealth’s claim of due diligence | Commonwealth: initial failure to stop extradition is regrettable but not conclusive if subsequent diligent IAD efforts occurred | Plowden: permitting extradition without obtaining stay or Governor’s Warrant shows lack of reasonable effort to try him timely | Held: The court distinguished prior precedent (Browne) and concluded the Commonwealth’s later, documented IAD efforts remedied the earlier oversight for purposes of Rule 600 exclusion |
| Appropriate remedy for Rule 600 violation claim | Plowden: dismissal with prejudice | Commonwealth: challenge dismissal because sufficient excludable time existed | Held: Dismissal was reversed and case remanded for further proceedings because the court found sufficient excludable delay due to IAD efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Watson, 140 A.3d 696 (Pa. Super. 2016) (explains dual purpose of Rule 600 and that Rule 600 should not bar prosecution absent Commonwealth misconduct)
- Commonwealth v. Booze, 953 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2008) (IAD delays caused by responding state can be excludable when Commonwealth shows due diligence)
- Commonwealth v. McNear, 852 A.2d 401 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Rule 600 tolled when Commonwealth demonstrates due diligence in extradition efforts)
- Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083 (Pa. 2010) (due diligence is fact-specific and burden rests on Commonwealth)
- Commonwealth v. Browne, 584 A.2d 902 (Pa. 1990) (lack of case-tracking and failure to act can constitute lack of due diligence under Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2012) (discusses Browne and prosecutorial responsibilities regarding tracking and timely prosecution)