Young v. Commonwealth, Record No. 180515

• Decision Date: 03 July 2019
• Docket Number: Record No. 180515
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Michael Anthony YOUNG v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

829 S.E.2d 548

Michael Anthony YOUNG

v.COMMONWEALTH of Virginia

Record No. 180515

Supreme Court of Virginia.

July 3, 2019

Catherine French, Chief Appellate Counsel (Virginia Indigent Defense Commission, on briefs), for appellant.

Christopher P. Schandevel, Assistant Attorney General (Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

PRESENT: All the Justices

OPINION BY JUSTICE CLEO E. POWELL

Michael Anthony Young appeals from a judgment of the Court of Appeals of Virginia affirming his convictions for grand larceny, in violation of Code § 18.2-95 ; conspiracy to commit grand larceny, in violation of Code §§ 18.2-22 and 18.2-95 ; and false identification to a law enforcement officer, in violation of Code § 19.2-82.1. On appeal, Young argues that his right to a speedy trial was violated and that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denials of his motions to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

On November 25, 2015, Michael Anthony Young was arrested on a charge of having robbed a minor. Young was charged with robbery (Count 1), which was bound over for the grand jury by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court on March 2, 2016. The grand jury indicted Young on Count 1 on March 14, 2016. Young was directly indicted on March 14, 2016 for conspiracy to commit robbery, grand larceny, conspiracy to commit a felony, and giving false identification to law enforcement (Counts 2-5). The indictment return order indicated "no bond on all counts." For purposes of speedy trial determinations, Young’s period of incarceration began March 2, 2016. Absent any intervening events extending the applicable period, his speedy trial period would expire on August 3, 2016 for Count 1 and August 15 for Counts 2 through 5. Young’s jury trial was scheduled for August 1-3, 2016.

On July 15, 2016, Young filed a motion to dismiss the indictments against him based upon discovery issues with the Commonwealth. Young argued in his motion that he was "forced ... to choose between his right to a speedy trial and his right to the effective assistance of counsel." The trial court held a hearing on Young’s motion to dismiss on July 19. Young made various arguments in support of his motion to dismiss. Among other things, he specifically argued that the indictments should be dismissed due to the Commonwealth’s late production of 1005 recorded jail phone calls made by Young which totaled 225 hours in length and the revelation of the existence of a previously undisclosed certificate of analysis from the victim’s cell phone. Counsel for Young argued:

I would suggest at the end of the day the Commonwealth has put [Young] in a position, and he has no choices. He can choose to stand on his rights to a speedy trial and go to trial on August 1st and be unprepared and put himself in a position to not be able to redevelop his defense, reinvestigate his case; reconfigure what he is going to do or how he is going to present it; never mind the fact that there is an absolute impossibility at this point in time to listen to all of those recordings; that there is still information that we simply don’t know and we don’t know if or when we’re going to know it; that it could come in tomorrow or a week from tomorrow or the day before trial, and just take his chances in court on a charge that is not insignificant in any way....

Or he can say to the [c]ourt, I need to have this case continued because I want my case to be prepared.

After the trial court indicated it would take the motion to dismiss under advisement, counsel for Young stated:

if the [c]ourt doesn’t grant the motion to dismiss, regardless of whatever other remedies the [c]ourt chooses to fashion or not fashion, [Young’s] position is going to be that we’re certainly not in a position to go forward with trial on August 1st, regardless of the ways in which the Commonwealth is suggesting that this evidence be limited in some fashion. I don’t want to be disingenuous to the [c]ourt and say I’m going to wait for your ruling and then have it and then turn around and come back to this [c]ourt and say, ["]If you’re not dismissing this case, then we’re now not ready to go forward.["] I do want to be up front with the [c]ourt.

The trial court scheduled a hearing for July 25 for its ruling on Young’s motion to dismiss.

At the July 25 hearing, the trial court held that it did not "find that this [was] a comprehensive failure to provide discovery." The trial court denied the motion to dismiss but imposed sanctions against the Commonwealth, prohibiting it from relying on the jail phone calls at trial, binding the Commonwealth to a stipulation regarding the certificate of analysis, and ordering it to file supplemental discovery by August 8.

Despite the sanctions the trial court imposed, Young continued to argue that

we don’t feel this should be a situation which Mr. Young has to forfeit his rights to a speedy trial in light of his rights to have the information that he’s entitled to, which again, once we move this court date will all but ensure we will be outside the speedy trial time.

In light of Young’s position, a discussion regarding bond ensued. In response to the trial court’s statement that "it’s a practical concession that bond would need to be granted," Young stated that bond was "not really a solution ... because he [was] being held on other matters from other jurisdictions. So setting a bond in this case will actually do nothing to provide him any liberty." At the conclusion of the discussion, Young recommended placing the case on the August 15 scheduling docket but stated, "I don’t want the [c]ourt to take that as the defense is now agreeing that this, in essence, three-week window would be attributable to Mr. Young because I’m asking to use the 15th." In light of the fact that August 15th was outside the speedy trial window, the Commonwealth offered to try to provide the required responses earlier in order to keep the trial date and keep Young’s speedy trial rights intact. Directly addressing the speedy trial issue, the Commonwealth raised the issue of whether Young was requesting a continuance or if "we’re just kind of putting the case out." In response, defense counsel stated:

[w]e’re certainly not in a position to go forward even if a response came in.

....

To now attribute this idea and say this is now the defendant’s continuance and he has to eat this time or it should be held against him, again, would be fundamentally unfair and quite frankly inappropriate. The Commonwealth had this information all along.

....

[T]his time should be attributable to the Commonwealth.

In response to this colloquy, the trial court replied, "this [c]ourt is not today ruling that this is the defendant’s motion to remove this case from the docket. I don’t know what that means down the road, but I do not count this as a defense motion."

Thereafter, on August 8th and 15th, Young filed additional motions to dismiss the charges against him alleging violations of the speedy trial statute. Young argued that his speedy trial rights were violated because the trial court failed to count the continuance against the Commonwealth. In response, the Commonwealth argued that Young stated that he would not be ready for trial by August 1, thus causing the trial court to remove the matter from the August 1 trial docket. Prior to rendering its decision, the trial court recounted the events leading up to the continuance. Specifically, the trial court recounted that

[o]n July 19th, the [trial court] recognized that the August 1st trial date was approaching and when attempting to determine a date to set for a ruling on the pending motion ... defense counsel informed the [c]ourt that regardless of the [c]ourt’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, that the defense would not be [in] a position to try the case on August 1st due to various discovery issues .... Taking note of that, and without objection of either counsel, the [c]ourt then set July 25th as the date for the ruling on the motion to dismiss.

....

[J]ust because the [c]ourt has determined that [Young] didn’t file a motion to continue does not [lead to] the conclusion that the speedy trial provisions had been violated and the [c]ourt is required to dismiss the charges.

Against this backdrop, the trial court continued:

As I said, the defense had not filed any document that was styled motion to continue but the removal of the August 1 trial date was originated by [Young’s] declaration that he would not be prepared to try the case on August 1st.

So the [c]ourt finds that the process then occurred that resulted in the removal of the trial date was in pari ratione , that is by like mode or reasoning or for the like reason as if [Young] had filed a motion to continue.

Having reached this conclusion, the trial court applied the analysis of Taylor v. Commonwealth , 4 Va. App. 45, 354 S.E.2d 74 (1987) (holding that absent a showing of bad faith by the Commonwealth, continuances requested by defendant will not be charged to the Commonwealth), specifically found no bad faith on the part of the Commonwealth, and denied the motion to dismiss.

Young thereafter pled guilty to Count 5 (false identification to a law enforcement officer). At his November 2016 jury trial, the trial court granted the motion to strike Counts 1 (robbery) and 2 (conspiracy to commit robbery). The jury found Young guilty on Counts 3 (grand larceny) and 4 (conspiracy to commit larceny). Young was sentenced to a total of 16 months’ incarceration.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Young v. Commonwealth , Record No. 0265-17-4, 2018 WL 1385405 (Mar. 20, 2018) (unpublished). Contrary to the trial court’s finding that Young’s actions were in pari ratione to a defense continuance motion, the Court of Appeals found that the continuance was court-ordered. The Court of Appeals held that a court-ordered continuance is considered an implied exception to the time periods under the speedy trial act under Howard v. Commonwealth ...