Commonwealth v. Sadler

• Decision Date: 10 December 1979
• Docket Number: 1214,1216,1215
• Citation: 3 Phila. 316
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Edward Sadler
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

3 Phila. 316

Commonwealth v. Edward Sadler

Nos. 1214, 1215, 1216

Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania

December 10, 1979

SYLLABUS

(1) For purposes of Rule 1100 motion, time begins to run from the date of arrest rather than the date of certification

(2) To construe Rule 1100 time limits, to begin in juvenile case from the date of certification rather than the date of arrest, violates a juvenile's right to equal protection under the law.

Lynn Bennett, Esquire, for the Commonwealth

Carl Baker, Esquire, for Defendant

OPINION

REVISED OPINION

FORER J.

This case raises in stark relief the constitutional issue of equal protection of the law. Defendant at age fifteen was arrested on July 18, 1978. He was brought to trial in adult court on June 25, 1979, eleven months after his arrest. He was tried without a jury and convicted of conspiracy, robbery in the third degree and simple assault. The evidence discloses that defendant in company with others robbed the victim of his wallet containing $8.00. This defendant was not the assailant who had a knife.

Making allowances for defendant's various failures to appear, the elapsed time between arrest and trial is 317 days, a clear violation of Rule 1100. No motion had been filed by defense counsel at any stage of the proceedings asserting the defendant's right to a speedy trial. After conviction and pending filing of post trial motions, this Court informed counsel of the existence of this serious constitutional issue and requested briefs. The Commonwealth then moved for the recusation of this Court. The motion was denied. ^[*] Both Commonwealth and defense briefed and argued the speedy trial issue. At the Commonwealth's request, the juvenile record of defendant was obtained and made a part of this Court's record.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Juvenile Court records disclose that defendant was charged in two separate juvenile petitions with two delinquent acts (robberies) which allegedly occurred on July 6, 1978, when he was fifteen years old. On that date defendant was arrested on one charge. On July 18, 1978, he was arrested on the charges at issue here. This case was listed for a pre-trial hearing before the Juvenile Court on August 9, 1978, and was continued to September 5, 1978, for an adjudicatory hearing. The Commonwealth notified defendant on August 24, 1978, that it was requesting that defendant be certified to stand trial in adult court in both cases. On September 5, 1978, the complainant in this case failed to appear and the case was continued to September 28, 1978, at which time defendant failed to appear. The case was continued to October 23, 1978, at which time the complainant again failed to appear. A status listing of October 26, 1978, was given to obtain updated neuropsychiatric reports. The reports were not ready on the scheduled date. The case was continued for a certification hearing to be held on November 12, 1978, at which time the complainant failed to appear for the third time.

Both cases arising out of the July 6, 1978 incidents were scheduled for certification hearings ^[1] on November 14, 1978. The prima facie case in this case was not presented because the complainant failed to appear for a fourth time. Although defendant was represented by the Public Defender, no motion to dismiss was made and the case was again continued. The prima facie case in the other matter was presented and the certification judge held that a prima facie case had been established in that case. Testimony and argument on the amenability issue were heard. Defendant was found to be amenable to treatment within the juvenile system and, therefore, not subject to certification, 42 Pa. C.S. § 6355.

The matter presently before this Court was continued to December 12, 1978. On that date, the judge who had held the certification hearing of November 14, 1978 held that a prima facie case had been established in this case. Although at that date, Edward had been found amenable to treatment the judge scheduled another amenability hearing for January 8, 1979. At that hearing the same judge ruled that Edward was not amenable to treatment and certified him to adult court for trial. The judge based his findings on two reports from Cornwells Heights: one dated December 11, 1978, indicated that Edward was making substantial improvement, ^[2] the other, dated December 27, 1978, was unfavorable.

Significantly, on January 8, 1977, 184 days had elapsed since Edward's arrest. Edward was arraigned on January 13, 1979, and the case was continued until February 2, 1979, for a pre-trial conference. On February 2, 1979, a trial listing was set for May 4, 1979. A motion to suppress was litigated and denied on May 4, 1979. On June 25, 1979, defendant was tried before this Court.

CASE HISTORY OF EDWARD SADLER

Edward Sadler's involvement with the Juvenile Court reveals that this child was listed before the Juvenile Court 75 times and that his problems were diagnosed by three different court psychiatrists at three different times and that these reports were available to the court. ^[3] Nonetheless, the Court failed to provide any " treatment, supervision or rehabilitation" for this child which the court is mandated to do. 42 Pa. C.S. § 6341. The court records also reveal that this child was represented by the Public Defender at these numerous appearances. The records do not indicate that any motions or petitions were filed or that any objections were made or any appeals taken in the numerous instances in which this child's rights were violated.

His family was well known to the Juvenile Court system for many years. Defendant's mother had been before the court as a juvenile. She was later charged with neglect and abuse petitions spanning several years and involving her seven children. Edward first came to the attention of the Juvenile Court when he ran away from home at the age of eight. His father, a mugging victim, was stabbed to death when Edward was ten years old. This incident was perceived by the court psychiatrists to be an important continuing factor in his problems.

Most of the charges against Edward were trivial Many did not involve allegations of a criminal offense. On June 17, 1971 September 18, 1973, and June 5, 1977, respectively, Edward was arrested on the charge of " runaway" . On October 15, 1973, he was arrested on the charge of " theft of services", (failure to pay his SEPTA fare). On October 14, 1975, and May 30, 1976, Edward was arrested for the possession of a starter pistol. Defendant was adjudicated delinquent only seven times. ^[4]

Edward was first adjudicated delinquent on September 26, 1973, for an alleged robbery and theft; the evidence against Edward was an admission made when he was ten years old. There is no indication in the file that Edward was advised of his rights or that his mother or any other adult was present when he gave the statement.

He was next adjudicated delinquent on February 19, 1974, on the charge of receiving stolen property. This adjudication was later vacated. On the same date, he was adjudicated delinquent on a charge of vandalism. The only evidence against him was an admission made when he was eleven years old. Again there is no indication in the records that he was advised of his rights or that an adult was present when he gave his statement.

Edward was next adjudicated delinquent on August 12, 1975, when he was twelve years old, for robbery, theft, receiving stolen property and criminal conspiracy. The amount taken from the victim's wallet was $390.00. On October 27, 1975, at the age of thirteen, Edward was adjudicated delinquent upon his admission that he had been carrying a starter pistol. Again there is no indication of the circumstances surrounding the taking of this statement.

Edward was next adjudicated delinquent on March 3, 1976, for allegedly committing robbery, theft, receiving stolen property and criminal conspiracy, for which he was arrested on January 12, 1976, at the age of thirteen. This robbery netted Edward thirty cents. On June 11, 1976, at the age of thirteen, Edward was adjudicated delinquent for possessing a starter pistol. On November 14, 1978, Edward was adjudicated delinquent for robbery, theft, receiving stolen property and conspiracy, for which he was arrested on July 6, 1978, at the age of fifteen at the same time as the arrest for the offenses in the case at bar. The property taken in this robbery was a watch valued at $75.00.

I. Recusation.

The Commonwealth's motion to recuse for bias and prejudice was filed after the Court convicted Sadler in a nonjury trial. It is evident from this fact that the Court was not biased or prejudiced against the Commonwealth. A serious issue of law was apparent from the record itself and the facts presented by the Commonwealth, namely that Sadler had not been brought to trial for eleven months from the date of the arrest. Even a police officer, and certainly a judge is required to take notice of a situation " so grossly and flagrantly unconstitutional that any person of reasonable prudence would be bound to see its flaws." Michigan v. De Fillippo, 47 L.W. 4805 (1979).

It is the duty of the trial judge to protect the rights of litigants. When it is evident that counsel has overlooked or ignored a fundamental constitutional issue, the court would be remiss if it sat by and failed to raise the issue. By notifying counsel rather than simply deciding the issue in an opinion, the Court afforded counsel for the Commonwealth and counsel for the defendant the opportunity to brief and argue the issue. In fact, extensive briefs were filed and lengthy argument was had on this issue.

The following options were available to the court after conviction. 1. Take no action and...