PA Superior Court Finds Rule 600 Fully Suspended Due to COVID Emergency Even Where Delay Not Due to COVID Emergency

Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Carl, holding that the trial court improperly granted a defendant’s Rule 600 motion to dismiss by ignoring the fact that the rule had been suspended due to a locally declared judicial emergency. This case is significant because it limits a defendant’s ability to get his case dismissed on Rule 600 grounds because of judicial orders that were put into place during COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, many judicial districts suspended Rule 600 even though they were still actively hearing criminal cases. Because of Carl, a defendant is precluded from using time if it was expressly written in a local judicial order even if that same judicial district was still hearing criminal cases during the time period in question.

Commonwealth v. Carl

In July 2020, the defendant was charged with simple assault and summary harassment in York County. He had a preliminary hearing in August 2020. The defendant then filed a waiver of arraignment in September 2020. The defendant was then scheduled for a plea date in November 2020, but then the defendant’s case was scheduled for trial date in January 2021. However, after the defendant’s case got continued, York County issued an emergency order that suspended jury trials from November 30, 2020 to February 28, 2021. The defendant’s case was not called for trial until October 2021. At this time, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The trial court held a hearing on the defendant’s speedy trial motion. At the hearing, the defendant argued that 485 days had passed since the filing of the criminal complaint. He conceded that there were 46 days of excludable time in his case. The Commonwealth argued that the time from June 29, 2020 to August 31, 2020 should also be excluded because the York County Court of Common pleas was operating under a Covid-19 related judicial emergency declaration that was issued by the President Judge. As part of this declaration, the President Judge “suspended statewide rules pertaining to the rule-based right of criminal defendants to a prompt trial.” Further, any case that was postponed by the judicial emergency would be considered a court postponement and constitute as excludable time for purposes of Rule 600.

The Commonwealth and the defendant agreed that that the emergency order had not actually contributed to any delay in litigating the defendant’s case. The trial court noted that there was no discernable backlog of pending criminal trials in York County during this period of time. The trial court also produced a list of 15 criminal cases with less Rule 600 urgency than the defendant’s case that the Commonwealth elected to bring to trial before the defendant’s case. Consequently, the trial court did not consider the York County judicial emergency order and also concluded that the Commonwealth had not demonstrated appropriate time management in the defendant’s case. Therefore, the trial court found that the Commonwealth had not acted with due diligence throughout the proceedings to bring the case to trial in compliance with Rule 600 and thus granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Commonwealth then filed an appeal.

What is Rule 600?

Rule 600 of the Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure provides that “trial in a court case in which a written criminal complaint is filed against the defendant shall commence within 365 days from the date on which the complaint is filed.” In calculating the Rule 600 deadline, the courts do not necessarily count all the time following the filing of the complaint. Instead, the courts will consider periods of delay at any state of the proceedings which were caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence. If there are other periods of delay (i.e. a defendant takes a continuance) then that time shall be excluded from the computation. If enough time passes where the Commonwealth was not diligent in putting up its case against a defendant, then a defense attorney may file a motion to dismiss with prejudice. The appellate courts were very hostile to these motions for a long time, but more recently, they have begun to enforce the rule more consistently.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Opinion

The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the lower court’s decision. In making its decision, the Superior Court reviewed the judicial emergency order that was issued by the President Judge in York County. In that order, it specifically stated that “during the emergency…statewide rules pertaining to the rule-based right of criminal defendants to a prompt trial [is suspended.” Therefore, this meant that all Rule 600 computations in criminal cases were to be held in abeyance and defendants could not include this time period in their Rule 600 calculations. As such, the Superior Court found that the defendant’s new adjusted run date was December 2021 and therefore the trial court improperly granted his motion to dismiss. Consequently, the defendant will now have to face trial on the charges against him.

Facing Criminal Charges? We Can Help.

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, and Murder. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.