Commonwealth v. Riley
19 A.3d 1146
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Commonwealth filed a criminal complaint against Riley on Feb. 21, 2009; he was released on bail.
- As of May 26, 2010, 459 days had elapsed since the complaint without trial, with at least one defense continuance.
- A 55-day period (Nov. 18, 2009–Jan. 11, 2010) was excludable due to a defense continuance.
- Riley moved for dismissal under Rule 600 on May 26, 2010; the court sought transcripts and continued the case to decide.
- In Sep. 2010 the court granted Rule 600 dismissal; Commonwealth appealed challenging the time-division findings.
- The Superior Court reversed, concluding certain days were misattributed to the Commonwealth and 334 days remained within Rule 600, so no violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in attributing days to the Commonwealth | Riley | Riley | No; court misattributed days; attributable was excess. |
| Whether January 12–February 12, 2010 time should be excludable | Commonwealth | Riley | Excludable time; trial court erred in charging to Commonwealth. |
| Whether February 12–March 22, 2010 delay due to snowstorm and court decision is excusable | Commonwealth | Riley | Excusable; not chargeable to Commonwealth. |
| Whether the Commonwealth should have borne responsibility for the 70-day misattribution | Commonwealth | Riley | Rejected; misattribution remediated, resulting in 334 days within Rule 600. |
| Whether Rule 600 dismissal was proper given the corrected time calculation | Commonwealth | Riley | Improper; dismissal reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Frye, 909 A.2d 853 (Pa.Super.2006) (due diligence defense delay excusable under Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa.Super.2007) (due diligence and case-specific facts govern excusability)
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 2 A.3d 628 (Pa.Super.2010) (compliance with Rule 600 requires reasonable diligence)
- Commonwealth v. Malgieri, 889 A.2d 604 (Pa.Super.2005) (court-admin decisions and jury pool unavailability generally excusable)
- Commonwealth v. Trippett, 932 A.2d 188 (Pa.Super.2007) (court unavailability typically excusable; defendant’s burden limited)
- Commonwealth v. Anderson, 959 A.2d 1248 (Pa.Super.2008) (duty to seek other courtrooms may arise in prolonged delays)
- Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa.Super.2005) (delay necessitated by motion to obtain transcripts not attributable to Commonwealth)