Commonwealth v. Harth, 13 EAP 2020
| Decision Date | 22 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 13 EAP 2020,13 EAP 2020 |
| Citation | 252 A.3d 600 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Khalid M. HARTH, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Aaron Joshua Marcus, Esq., Victor Edward Rauch, Esq., Defender Association of Philadelphia, for Appellant.
Emily Patricia Daly, Esq., Lawrence Jonathan Goode, Esq., Jonathan Michael Levy, Esq., Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, for Appellee.
OPINION
In this appeal by allowance, we consider whether a trial court may rely upon its own unavailability as justification for denying a defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to the speedy trial provisions of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, without first requiring the Commonwealth to demonstrate that it acted with due diligence in prosecuting the defendant's case. For the reasons that follow, we find that a trial court may invoke "judicial delay" in order to deny a defendant's Rule 600 motion to dismiss only after the Commonwealth has demonstrated that it complied with the due diligence requirements of Rule 600 at all relevant periods throughout the life of the case. Thus, we reverse the order of the Superior Court, reverse Appellant's judgment of sentence, and discharge him.
On January 22, 2015, the Commonwealth filed complaints against Appellant Khalid M. Harth and co-defendant Darren Brown in connection with their involvement in a home invasion and armed robbery 11 days prior. Thereafter, on February 24, 2015, a grand jury indicted Appellant on multiple counts of, inter alia , robbery, burglary, conspiracy to commit robbery, and conspiracy to commit burglary.
Relevant to the instant appeal, on April 7, 2015, the trial court held a scheduling conference at which it slated Appellant's trial for September 28, 2015, and ordered the Commonwealth to produce discovery by June 22, 2015. In its docket entry related to the scheduling conference, the court noted: "Defense needs videos, FBI extract, 2010 video[s], discovery for DC-14-15-05913[,] and color photo[s.]" Criminal Docket in Commonwealth v. Harth , No. CP-51-CR-0002122-2015 (hereinafter "Criminal Docket"), at 7 (unpaginated). Additionally, the court documented that the "Commonwealth has no medical records," and it scheduled a conference for June 22, 2015, to address the status of discovery. Id. According to a docket entry from June 22, 2015, however, the Commonwealth was not ready to produce Indicting Grand Jury ("IGJ") discovery at that time. Thus, the court listed the case for a discovery status conference on July 28, 2015, but maintained the September 28, 2015 trial date.
Thereafter, the Commonwealth requested a continuance for disclosing discovery, which the court granted on July 28, 2015, directing the Commonwealth to produce IGJ discovery by July 30, 2015. Pertinently, on July 30, 2015, the trial court rescheduled Appellant's trial for December 14, 2015, in light of the Pope's impending visit to Philadelphia in September 2015; the associated docket entry provides, in relevant part: "09/28/15 date is blocked, POPE'S VISIT."1 Id. at 9.
The Commonwealth subsequently filed another motion for continuance, which the trial court granted on August 21, 2015, without explanation, and rescheduled Appellant's trial for January 11, 2016, noting in a docket entry that "IGJ discovery [needed] to be passed."2 Id. Yet, by order dated December 29, 2015, the trial court rescheduled Appellant's trial for January 25, 2016, again providing no explanation. Thereafter, because counsel for Appellant's co-defendant was scheduled for trial in an unrelated matter on January 25, 2016, and the Commonwealth refused to sever the defendants’ cases, the trial court again rescheduled the trial for May 23, 2016. Id. at 11.
On his scheduled trial date of May 23, 2016, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600,3 asserting that the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting his case, in light of its failure to turn over discovery which remained outstanding at that time. On that date and the two ensuing days, the trial court presided over a trial in an unrelated case; thus, it continued Appellant's trial, but refrained from setting a new date. Instead, the court scheduled a hearing on Appellant's Rule 600 motion for June 2, 2016, and noted that it would reschedule his trial thereafter. Notably, the relevant docket entries reflect that "[a]dditional [d]iscovery [was] outstanding" as of May 23 and 24, Criminal Docket at 12, and that, on May 25, 2016, "[a]udio discovery [was] passed at the bar of the [c]ourt," id. at 13.
On June 2, 2016, the trial court presided over the scheduled hearing on Appellant's Rule 600 motion, and rescheduled his trial for November 28, 2016. At the hearing, Appellant's counsel argued that the Commonwealth had failed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting the case because it did not disclose relevant discovery, including three disks worth of police records, several police documents, and property receipts, in a timely manner. N.T. Rule 600 Hearing, 6/2/16, at 3-5. Relatedly, counsel asserted that the Commonwealth had not been ready to proceed to trial in January 2016 when it refused to sever Appellant's case from Brown's, given that it had not theretofore provided "extremely important discovery" to the defense. Id. at 6. Counsel also contended that the defense team learned that outstanding discovery existed only because counsel coincidentally overheard a conversation in the courthouse hallways between detectives.
Assistant District Attorney ("ADA") Matthew Gehrke, who was reassigned as the prosecutor on Appellant's case shortly before the Rule 600 hearing,4 countered that Appellant's counsel failed to notify him that they had not been provided with certain discoverable items. See id. at 7. ADA Gehrke also argued that the Commonwealth's refusal to sever Appellant's case from Brown's was not indicative of a lack of due diligence, and highlighted that the case was originally scheduled for trial in September 2015, but was relisted for January 2016 in light of the Pope's visit to Philadelphia. Thus, ADA Gehrke asserted that that period of time was excludable under Rule 600, and not attributable to the Commonwealth. According to ADA Gehrke, Appellant's trial was "well within the speedy trial" rule. Id. at 8.
On June 22, 2016, the court denied Appellant's motion, reasoning:
The period from when the first complaint was filed on or about January 22[,] 2015, and the current date is a total of approximately 516 or [5]17 days and subtracting -- or roughly speaking, 369 days of excusable or extendable time, there are a total of 147 days attributable to the Commonwealth, more or less, and this is within the limit of 365 days, and [Appellant] has not shown that the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence, and therefore the motion to dismiss is denied.
N.T. Hearing, 6/22/16, at 6. Notably, Appellant's counsel sought clarification from the court as to the impact of the Commonwealth's failure to fulfill its discovery obligation, resulting in the following exchange:
The case proceeded to trial on November 28, 2016.5 However, on that morning, the Commonwealth presented the defense with a discovery packet, which included 15 exhibits that the defense claimed were previously undisclosed. Hence, Appellant's counsel tendered a second motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600(A), arguing that the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence, as it neglected to share discoverable evidence with the defense, despite having such evidence in its possession since early in the case. The parties briefly discussed the record of outstanding discovery, as well as each party's respective intent to utilize the items disclosed that morning in the course of the trial. Thereafter, the trial court indicated that it would take Appellant's motion under advisement, and asked the Commonwealth for a final response to the motion. The Commonwealth responded: N.T. Trial, 11/28/16, at 24. The Commonwealth provided no explanation with respect to its failure to disclose discovery throughout the life of the case or, more specifically, regarding its failure to provide the defense with the 15 new exhibits which triggered Appellant's second Rule 600 motion on the morning of trial.
The following day, the trial court denied Appellant's second Rule 600 motion, incorporating by reference the findings it had previously rendered, and reiterating its prior reasoning. See N.T. Trial, 11/29/16, at 23. The court also explained that, in its view, Appellant "ha[d] not shown that the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence," id. , and noted that, in any event, even if the Commonwealth was not ready to proceed, it was not "going to hold the Commonwealth responsible," as the court was engaged in other matters which precluded it from holding Appellant's trial at an earlier date, id. at 24.
Ultimately, Appellant's jury trial proceeded, spanning ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Bowens
...the purpose behind the rule, and our prior jurisprudence interpreting [the rule] and its predecessor." Commonwealth v. Harth , ––– Pa. ––––, 252 A.3d 600, 617 (2021). Further, we presume "that our Supreme Court did not intend results which were absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonab......
-
Commonwealth v. Lopez
...committee which worked on the rule in determining the proper construction and application thereof." Commonwealth v. Harth , ––– Pa. ––––, 252 A.3d 600, 617 (2021) ; see also Commonwealth v. Martin , 479 Pa. 609, 388 A.2d 1361, 1363 (1978) ("While the comments to our Rules are not binding, t......
-
Brown v. Harry
...Cir. 2016) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2), (e)(1). The only support Brown provides for this claim is vague reliance on Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d 600 (Pa. 2021). (See Doc. No. 7 at 5.) Brown avers that his for allowance of appeal was held by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pending a ......
-
Commonwealth v. Rouse
...with the assessment made by the court at the Preliminary Hearing" in 2015. Id. at 25. As to Rule 600, Appellant relies on Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d 600 (Pa. 2021) (holding trial court may invoke "judicial delay" deny a defendant's Rule 600 motion only after the Commonwealth has demons......