Commonwealth v. Sloan
67 A.3d 1249
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Sloan was convicted of theft by deception and receiving stolen property after a non-jury trial and sentenced to prison and probation terms.
- She appealed challenging the denial of her Rule 600 motion to dismiss due to speedy-trial delays.
- Bradford, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, framed due-diligence analysis for Rule 600 schedule delays and identified the source of delay.
- The trial court and Commonwealth delayed filing the information, influencing the run date and scheduling of arraignment and pretrial conference.
- The information was not filed until May 11, 2009, though the complaint was filed July 30, 2008, creating a long interim.
- The majority found the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence, distinguishing Bradford and concluding Rule 600 was violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Commonwealth exercised due diligence under Rule 600 | Sloan | Sloan | Rule 600 violation; due diligence not shown; sentence vacated |
| Whether Bradford controls the outcome in this delay | Sloan | Sloan | Bradford distinguished; delay was Commonwealth-controlled, leading to reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693 (Pa. 2012) (delay caused by judicial/procedural failures; due diligence governs Rule 600)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (due diligence includes docketing and trial readiness within run date)
- Commonwealth v. Hunt, 858 A.2d 1234 (Pa. Super. 2004) (standard of review for Rule 600 abuse of discretion)