Commonwealth v. Stanko
| Decision Date | 06 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 881 WDA 2021,882 WDA 2021,883 WDA 2021,J-S14038-22 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. THOMAS GEORGE STANKO COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS STANKO Appellant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THOMAS GEORGE STANKO Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
In these consolidated appeals, the Commonwealth challenges three orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (trial court) dismissing with prejudice the offenses charged at the above-captioned docket numbers because the speedy trial periods had elapsed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. The Commonwealth argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not excluding from its computation of time the days that Thomas George Stanko (Stanko) spent in federal custody. We affirm.
Prosecutors in Westmoreland County charged Stanko in three separate matters on July 24, 2017 (case number 5589 C 2017); January 21, 2018 (case number 1943 C 2018); and April 12, 2018 (case number 1820 C 2018).[1]
While these three cases were still pending, on December 12, 2018, Stanko was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania at 403 MD 2019 and charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)). On December 14, 2018, a United States magistrate judge entered a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum "for Initial Appearance set for 1/15/2019." This writ directed that Stanko would be taken into federal custody to ensure his presence at a hearing on January 15, 2019, at the end of which Stanko would be returned to the custody of Westmoreland County. Pursuant to the federal writ, Stanko was taken into federal custody on the day of the hearing on January 15, 2019. It appears that federal authorities housed Stanko in the Allegheny County jail for that proceeding, which was held in Pittsburgh.
On January 18, 2019, the trial court entered a transport order directing the Superintendent of the Allegheny County jail to ensure Stanko's presence in Westmoreland County for a status conference concerning case number 1943 C 2018. The transport order provided further that Stanko would be "returned to the Allegheny County Jail upon completion of the [s]tatus [c]onference unless he or she is no longer subject to a sentence to be served with the Allegheny County Jail or the court orders otherwise." Trial Court Transport Order, 1/18/2019, at 1 (case number 1943 C 2018).
Stanko was returned without incident to the custody of Westmoreland County on January 24, 2019, so that he could appear for his status conference on February 15, 2019. Sometime after that date, Stanko went back into federal custody, where he has remained.[2] The trial court entered a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum on June 19, 2019, directing that Stanko be brought to Westmoreland County for a preliminary hearing on an unrelated case (403 C 2019) on June 21, 2019, but he was not made available.
The record is sparse concerning the relationship between the federal and county charges, but there is enough information to glean that during all of those prosecutions, Stanko was suspected of having some connection to the murder of his ex-girlfriend, Cassandra Gross, who has been missing since April 2018. No one has yet been charged in connection with her death.
On October 29, 2020, Stanko moved to dismiss three of his Westmoreland County criminal cases, arguing that the prompt trial periods had elapsed.[3] He claimed that the Commonwealth had violated Rule 600, which requires the Commonwealth to bring defendants to trial within 365 days of the date that the charges were filed. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Stanko's motion on December 18, 2020. Stanko was not present at the hearing, as he remained in federal custody.
Initially, the Commonwealth noted Stanko's absence at the hearing and called into question "the efficacy, wisdom, and knowing, intelligent, and voluntary nature" of the motion to dismiss in light of the fact that the three cases were being used as "[bargaining] chips in Mr. Stanko's negotiation process" in the federal matter. Hearing Transcript, 12/18/2020, at pp. 2-3. After accepting that Stanko nevertheless intended to seek dismissal, the Commonwealth attempted to prove its due diligence[4] with four pieces of evidence:
Hearing Transcript, 12/18/2020, Commonwealth Exhibits 1-4.
Based on the pendency of the federal case and the apparent unwillingness of federal authorities to transfer Stanko to Westmoreland County, the Commonwealth argued that none of the resulting delays in Stanko's cases were attributable to the prosecution for the purposes of Rule 600. Along the same lines, the Commonwealth argued that the federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum "trumped" the rival writ filed by the trial court in case number 403 C 2019, making it futile for the Commonwealth to try to secure Stanko's presence.
Defense counsel countered that the Commonwealth was responsible for the delays in bringing Stanko's county cases to trial. According to defense counsel, the district attorney had "turned away the prosecution that could've been here, because the [alleged weapon possession] was allegedly here in Westmoreland County on the guns that were charged." Id. at p. 11. In other words, defense counsel identified the unusual circumstances of the state and federal cases as evidence that the Commonwealth was attempting to keep the county charges pending for as long as possible. Defense counsel argued that the scant evidence of due diligence offered by the Commonwealth demonstrated its lack of genuine interest in taking the cases to trial.
On June 30, 2021, the trial court entered orders in all three cases granting Stanko's Rule 600 motions. After adjusting the respective run dates of each case based on delays attributable to the defense and other excusable delays, the trial court found that the Commonwealth's lack of due diligence during Stanko's federal custody had stalled the trials beyond their adjusted run-dates, warranting dismissal. The Commonwealth timely appealed, and it was then directed to submit a concise statement of errors as to all three orders it had challenged. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). On August 12, 2021, the Commonwealth timely submitted its 1925(b) statements, each of which included one identical issue:
1. The trial court erred by failing to exclude or excuse from the computation of time pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 600(A) and (C)(1) the period of time after February 15, 2019 where [Stanko] was in federal custody and unavailable to the [trial court].
Commonwealth's 1925(b) Statements, 8/12/2021, at 1-2.
The trial court entered three substantially similar 1925(a) opinions on November 29, 2021. As to the Commonwealth's evidence of due diligence, the trial court commented:
The Commonwealth has presented no explanation for when, how, or why Stanko was transferred to federal custody after he was returned to state custody for his in-person appearance in this court on February 15, 2019. This lack of curiosity on the part of the Commonwealth and its apparent lack of recognition that it has an obligation to provide an answer to this Court identifying the legal authority for the defendant's subsequent return to federal custody is consistent with its failure to provide evidence documenting its efforts to effect progress in the defendant's prosecution in state court[.]
Trial Court 1925(a) Opinion, 11/29/2021 at 8 (case number 5589 C 2017).
The trial court then expanded in its finding that the Commonwealth had made an insufficient showing of due diligence after federal authorities had taken custody of Stanko on February 15, 2019:
To continue reading
Request your trial