Commonwealth v. Wendel
165 A.3d 952
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- On Feb 5, 2015 Officer Jason Miller filed a criminal complaint charging Joshua Wendel with simple assault and criminal mischief arising from a Jan 30, 2015 incident involving a nine‑year‑old victim.
- A preliminary hearing was set for March 10, 2015; Officer Miller wrote the magisterial judge on Feb 19, 2015 requesting a continuance because he was scheduled for law‑enforcement leadership training in Harrisburg.
- The preliminary hearing was continued to March 17, 2015; the case was bound over and an information was filed Mar 31, 2015. Trial (voir dire) ultimately began Feb 8, 2016.
- Wendel filed a Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 motion to dismiss for violation of the 365‑day speedy‑trial rule; the trial court denied the motion and Wendel was convicted by jury of simple assault and found guilty of summary criminal mischief.
- On appeal Wendel argued the Commonwealth lacked due diligence because the seven‑day delay (Mar 10–17, 2015) caused by Officer Miller’s requested continuance was not chargeable to the Commonwealth, in part because the affiant (Officer Miller), not a prosecutor, made the request.
- The Superior Court held the seven‑day continuance was “excusable delay” attributable to circumstances beyond the Commonwealth’s control (officer’s training), and that the affiant qualifies under Pa.R.Crim.P. 542 to request continuances when no prosecutor appears.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wendel) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 600 bars prosecution because trial began after 365 days from filing complaint | The seven‑day continuance requested by the officer is not chargeable to the Commonwealth; thus trial (Feb 8, 2016) was after the mechanical run date and warrants dismissal | Officer Miller’s unavailability was beyond Commonwealth control and is excusable delay; as affiant he may request continuances when no prosecutor appears | Court held the seven‑day continuance was excusable delay, adjusted run date extended, and trial commenced before adjusted deadline — denial of dismissal affirmed |
| Whether a non‑prosecutor affiant may request a continuance at a preliminary hearing and have that delay chargeable to the Commonwealth | Only a party (i.e., the prosecutor) may request continuances under Pa.R.Crim.P. 542(G); an affiant is not a party, so continuance should not be charged to Commonwealth | Rule 542 expressly permits the affiant to act as Commonwealth representative at preliminary hearings when no prosecutor appears; affiant’s request is valid | Court held Rule 542 permits the affiant to function as Commonwealth representative in the prosecutor’s absence and to request continuances; no error in charging delay to Commonwealth |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228 (Pa. Super. 2013) (explains Rule 600 dual purpose, due diligence standard)
- Commonwealth v. Ramos, 936 A.2d 1097 (Pa. Super. 2007) (mechanical run date is 365 days from complaint)
- Commonwealth v. Brock, 61 A.3d 1015 (Pa. 2013) (trial commences for Rule 600 when voir dire or other substantial first step begins)
- Commonwealth v. Hyland, 875 A.2d 1175 (Pa. Super. 2005) (witness unavailability beyond Commonwealth control constitutes excusable delay)
- Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2006) (distinguishes adjusted run date and excusable delay analysis)