Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 6/21/24 Zak Goldstein 6/21/24

PA Supreme Court: Speedy Trial Rule (Rule 600) Runs From Filing of Second Complaint When Commonwealth Acts Diligently

Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Womack, holding that the speedy trial rule (Pa.R.Crim.P. 600) runs from the filing of a second related complaint as long as the Commonwealth acted diligently in the prosecution of the case.

The Facts of Womack

On October 6, 2017, Pennsylvania State Trooper Andrew Corl led a search at Tyler and Bobbi Martin's home in Huntingdon County. The search uncovered a large sum of money, drugs, and stolen firearms linked to Marcus Womack. Womack was immediately arrested and charged with nine offenses, including possession with intent to deliver (PWID), conspiracy to commit PWID, and possession of a firearm by a person prohibited.

Following his arrest, further investigation revealed Womack's involvement in a larger drug trafficking operation extending to Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This led to a second criminal complaint with additional charges based on new evidence.

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) took over the case. It conducted a grand jury investigation and ultimately filed the second, more extensive complaint against Womack involving additional charges.

The Rule 600 Motion

Womack eventually moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the Commonwealth violated his rights by not bringing him to trial within 365 days as required by Rule 600. Womack argued that the time for speedy trial purposes should start on the date the Commonwealth filed the first complaint. The Commonwealth responded that the time did not begin to run until the filing of the second complaint because the Commonwealth acted with due diligence during the prosecution of the case. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the second complaint was based on new evidence legitimately uncovered during the subsequent investigation. It did not stem from an attempt to violate Rule 600 or Womack’s speedy trial rights.

The Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, opining that the prosecution exercised due diligence in the period between the two complaints. The defendant appealed further, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the appeal. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed, stating that the filing of the second complaint was necessitated by factors beyond the prosecution's control and that the grand jury investigation was a necessary and diligent step. In other words, the police properly arrested Womack when they conducted the initial search. They were not required to wait to bring charges while they investigated further. And once they arrested him, they realized that additional investigation was necessary, so it was not unreasonable for the Commonwealth to later file a second complaint once it uncovered additional evidence of criminal activity. As the Commonwealth never acted with the purpose of delaying trial and investigated the case in a diligent manner, the time ran from the filing of the second complaint, giving the Commonwealth more time to prosecute the defendant.

The key issue in these cases is due diligence. Where the prosecution acts with due diligence, the time runs from the second complaint and the prosecution will have more time to bring the defendant to trial. Where the prosecution acts without due diligence (such as in letting a case get dismissed because it failed to make sure that witnesses showed up for court), the time will run from the first complaint and a speedy trial motion may be successful. In this case, all of the courts involved found that the prosecution acted with due diligence. The prosecution's efforts to investigate further after the first complaint demonstrated due diligence. The grand jury process was crucial to uncovering the full extent of Womack's criminal activities. Therefore, the Supreme Court ruled that the timeline for Rule 600 starts from the filing of the second complaint if it arises from new evidence and the prosecution acts diligently.

These cases are generally fact specific. In this case, the prosecution did not really do anything unfair to intentionally or even negligently cause delays. The first arrest led to a broader investigation that uncovered evidence that supported additional charges, so it was not unreasonable for the Commonwealth to file a second complaint. The Commonwealth acted with due diligence, so it had the benefit of Rule 600’s deadline being calculated from the date the second complaint was filed rather than the first.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

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 and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. 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.

Zak Goldstein 6/8/24 Zak Goldstein 6/8/24

PA Supreme Court: PCRA Court Should Hold Hearing to See if Appointing New Counsel Warranted When Defendant Raises Claims of PCRA Counsel’s Ineffectiveness on Appeal

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Greer, holding that the lower courts erred in requiring an attorney to continue representing the defendant/PCRA petitioner on appeal without first holding a hearing to determine whether the petitioner should have received a new attorney or represented himself for the appeal. In Greer, the defendant submitted pro se filings while the denial of his PCRA petition was on appeal alleging that PCRA counsel, who was still representing him for the appeal, had provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in the PCRA proceedings by failing to raise meritorious claims. The Supreme Court held that before requiring counsel to file a merits brief on the issues he did raise, the lower courts should have held a hearing to determine whether the appointment of new counsel was necessary or alternatively, whether the defendant should be required or allowed to represent himself.

The Facts of Greer

A jury convicted Greer of first-degree murder and carrying a firearm without a license. He appealed to the Superior Court, and the Superior Court affirmed on direct appeal. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a petition for allowance of appeal.

Following the conclusion of his direct appeals, Greer filed a timely pro se PCRA petition. The court appointed counsel for him, and his court-appointed counsel eventually filed an amended PCRA petition. The PCRA court denied the petition, and counsel filed an appeal on Greer’s behalf.

While the appeal was pending, Greer submitted a request for remand to raise claims that his PCRA counsel provided the ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to raise certain meritorious claims. The Superior Court remanded the case to the PCRA court to address these new claims, but the Commonwealth filed for reconsideration, arguing that the Superior Court should first address the claims which had already been developed by PCRA counsel. The Superior Court then directed counsel to file a merits brief on those issues. The defendant appealed, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court accepted the appeal to decide whether the PCRA court should hold a hearing on who should represent the defendant for appeal or whether the Superior Court properly decided that the claims which had already been developed should be resolved first.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the PCRA court for a hearing on whether the defendant should receive new counsel, represent himself, or continue to be represented by PCRA counsel. The Court ruled that when an appellate court identifies potential ineffectiveness claims against current PCRA counsel, the proper procedure is to remand the case to the PCRA court to determine whether they have potential merit and who should represent the defendant. This remand should include an on-the-record colloquy with the petitioner about their right to counsel, the prohibition of hybrid representation (where the petitioner would partially represent themselves while also having counsel), and how they wish to proceed.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Superior Court should have remanded the case for a hearing to clarify Greer’s representation status before directing his PCRA counsel to file a merits brief on any of the issues. By forcing PCRA counsel to file a merits brief on the developed issues, the Superior Court inadvertently allowed hybrid representation, which is prohibited and undermines the appellate process. Therefore, the Court remanded for the PCRA court to determine who should represent the petitioner or alternatively, whether he should be allowed to proceed pro se.

Ultimately, this case resolves a complicated procedural issue that will not arise in every case, but it does show that the appellate courts have become much better about providing protections to ensure that PCRA petitioners receive the effective assistance of counsel. Previously, there was no meaningful way for a petitioner to challenge the ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel in state court. These claims would have to be raised in federal court by filing a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Now, however, a PCRA petitioner may retain new counsel or ask for new court appointed counsel and raise those issues on appeal of the denial of a PCRA petition if they can identify legitimate issues of PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers

Zak Goldstein 6/4/24 Zak Goldstein 6/4/24

PA Superior Court: Unproven Hearsay Allegations Did Not Justify Denying Expungement Petition in Domestic Violence Case

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Adams, holding that the trial court erred in denying Adams’s expungement petition because it relied entirely on unproven hearsay allegations in denying the petition. This case will hopefully sharply limit the Commonwealth’s ability to object to the expungement of a dismissed case based solely on untested hearsay allegations that the case was serious or involved domestic claims.

Adams's legal troubles began with a 2007 conviction for violating a Protection From Abuse (PFA) order and harassment against his estranged wife. Following this conviction, Adams faced additional allegations in 2008, where his wife accused him of contacting or threatening her multiple times in violation of the PFA order. This resulted in five arrests and charges. Those charges included additional PFA violations, as well as charges of harassment and terroristic threats. He was arrested on five separate dockets, but his wife did not appear in court for any of them, and the Commonwealth ultimately withdrew all charges over ten years ago.

Adams’s case thus involved two sets of charges. In 2007, he was charged with violating a PFA order and harassment. He pleaded no contest, meaning he did not admit responsibility but did not contest the evidence, and was sentenced to six months of probation. In 2008, his estranged wife alleged he violated the PFA order five more times, leading to additional charges. The specific accusations included threats of violence, but these charges were withdrawn by the prosecution due to the complainant's failure to appear for court as required.

The Expungement Petition

In 2021, Adams filed to expunge the records of his 2008 arrests. Despite the charges being withdrawn, the trial court denied his petition, citing the nature of the allegations and the hearsay evidence in the records. Adams appealed this decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

The Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reviewed the trial court’s decision denying the expungement petition under the balancing test articulated in Commonwealth v. Wexler. Wexler requires weighing the petitioner’s right to be free from the harm of an arrest record against the Commonwealth's interest in retaining such records.

The Wexler Factors

The Superior Court analyzed each of the factors and ultimately concluded that a balance of all of the factors favored the petitioner.

Strength of the Commonwealth's Case:
- Contrary to the trial court, the Superior Court found that the Commonwealth's case against Adams was weak. The evidence relied solely on hearsay allegations without any formal presentation of a prima facie case. This was particularly true because Adams had not even had a preliminary hearing. In Philadelphia, summary and misdemeanor charges do not get scheduled for a preliminary hearing but instead are scheduled immediately for trial before a Municipal Court judge. Thus, there was not even sworn testimony for the trial court to rely upon. The Commonwealth instead introduced only the arrest reports (PARS reports). The allegations in the Preliminary Arrest Report Summaries (PARS) were not sworn statements and were not subject to cross-examination, rendering them insufficient even to sustain a conviction in a criminal trial. The Commonwealth also did not call any witnesses at the hearing on the expungement petition, meaning the Commonwealth relied entirely on untested hearsay.
Reasons for Retaining Records:
- The Commonwealth argued that the nature of the repeated domestic violence allegations justified retaining the records. However, the court noted that without substantiated evidence or further criminal activity by Adams since 2008, the interest in preserving these records was not compelling. The records' hearsay nature further undermined the validity of this reason.
Petitioner's Age, Criminal Record, and Employment History:
- At the time of the petition, Adams was 65 years old and had remained arrest-free since the 2008 allegations. The significant time elapsed since the charges, along with Adams's clean record for over a decade, weighed heavily in favor of expungement. The court recognized that Adams's age and lengthy period without criminal incidents demonstrated rehabilitation and a reduced risk of reoffending, making retaining the records less important.
Length of Time Between Arrest and Petition to Expunge:
- Thirteen years had passed since the withdrawal of the charges and Adams’s petition for expungement. This considerable gap, far exceeding the statute of limitations for the charges, supported the petition. The court noted that unlike in other cases where a shorter period might be insufficient, the extended time frame here was a strong factor favoring expungement. The court implied that a petition filed within the statute of limitations should be scrutinized more carefully.
Adverse Consequences to the Petitioner:
- Although Adams did not present evidence of economic harm, the court recognized potential reputational damage. Even sealed records can sometimes be accessed inappropriately, causing harm to an individual's reputation. The court also noted that having multiple arrest records, as opposed to a single incident, could lead to more significant adverse consequences for Adams in the eyes of potential employers or the public. In this case, Adams records had been sealed, but the sealing of records is not as good as a full expungement.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s Ruling

The Superior Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Adams's expungement petition. The court emphasized the lack of credible evidence against Adams given that the evidence consisted entirely of hearsay, the significant time elapsed since the charges, and the undue harm maintaining the records could cause to his reputation. The decision underscores the importance of the Wexler balancing test in ensuring that expungement petitions are evaluated fairly, particularly when charges are withdrawn and the evidence against the petitioner is weak or nonexistent. It also cautions trial courts that they generally must require real evidence at a hearing on an expungement petition. Hearsay allegations may be sufficient when the Commonwealth can prove some explanation for why witnesses cannot appear such as genuine evidence of witness intimidation, but in most cases, they will no longer be enough.

This could dramatically change the practice in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, prosecutors rarely call actual witnesses to testify at expungement hearings. Instead, they simply read the arrest report into the record even though the arrest report is hearsay. Following this case, the prosecution should be held to a higher standard and expected to produce competent evidence when they decide to oppose an expungement petition. This is an excellent decision by the court and recognizes that people should not have to live with criminal records from dismissed cases in which there was no evidence.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Criminal Lawyer Zak Goldstein Supreme Court

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We can also help you evaluate whether you may be able to file an expungement petition. In many cases, non-profits will handle expungements for free. But if the Commonwealth is objecting to your petition or you wish to expedite the process, we may be able to help move things along more quickly and give you a better chance of success. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. 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.

Zak Goldstein 5/25/24 Zak Goldstein 5/25/24

PA Superior Court: Statements Made to Constables May Be Suppressed for Lack of Miranda Warnings

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Seeney, holding that statements made to constables during a custodial interrogation may not be admissible in court unless the constable first gave Miranda warnings.

The Facts of Seeney

In Seeney, the defendant was charged with attempting to possess a firearm as a prohibited person in violation of § 6105 and two counts of making a false statement in connection with the purchase of a firearm in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111(g)(4). The police arrested the defendant, and he was held in custody at the Bucks County Correctional Center.

The defendant was scheduled for his preliminary hearing in 2022. In the suburban counties, preliminary hearings take place at the office of a Magisterial District Justice. Sheriffs transport prisoners to preliminary hearings in Philadelphia and for other hearings in the Court of Common Pleas in the counties, but magistrates use constables for prisoner transportation. In this case, a constable transported the defendant to the magistrate’s office for his preliminary hearing. The constable had no real involvement in the case and did not particularly care about it, but in making conversation with the defendant, he asked the defendant what he was charged with. The defendant then told the constable that he had tried to buy a gun despite being prohibited from doing so.

The constable did not give the defendant Miranda warnings during this conversation and likely would not have told anyone what the defendant said. Unfortunately for the defendant, a police detective happened to overhear it. The detective then called the constable the next day and asked the constable to give a formal statement about what the defendant said to him, and the constable would have then been a witness for the Commonwealth at trial.

The Motion to Suppress

Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the incriminating statement made to the constable because the constable never gave him Miranda warnings. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, and the Commonwealth appealed.

The Superior Court Appeal

On appeal, the Commonwealth argued that the constable was not required to provide Miranda warnings because 1) he did not actually interrogate the defendant and 2) he was not a law enforcement officer like a police officer or detective. The Superior Court rejected both arguments. First, it found that the constable’s questioning was clearly an interrogation. By asking the defendant about his court appearance, the constable asked questions which were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. The constable’s purpose in asking the questions - that he was just making conversation - did not matter. Instead, the test is whether the questions themselves were likely to elicit an incriminating response. Second, the court found that it was irrelevant that the constable was not actually a police officer or sworn law enforcement officer. Constables provide transportation to court for the magistrate. In order to do so, they physically restrict a prisoner’s movements both by locking them in their transport vehicle and in holding cells, and by guarding them while armed with a firearm. This creates a custodial setting no different than being transported by a sworn police officer, and the constables do this on behalf of the government. Accordingly, the fact that the constable was not actually a police officer was irrelevant - it was still a custodial interrogation conducted by a state actor.

When do the police have to give Miranda warnings?

The police only have to give a defendant Miranda warnings when they are going to conduct a custodial interrogation. If the police fail to give Miranda warnings, then any statement obtained may not be used against the defendant. The failure to give Miranda warnings does not automatically result in the dismissal of a case. Instead, it would only result in the suppression of a statement if the police took a statement. Accordingly, if the police do not want to take a statement or do not care if the resulting statement is going to be admissible, then they do not have to give Miranda warnings.

Here, the defendant was obviously in custody - he was being held at the Bucks jail and transported by an armed constable, and the constable asked him questions which were likely to result in incriminating admissions. The constable worked on behalf of the government, so this amounted to a custodial interrogation which required Miranda warnings. The Superior Court therefore upheld the trial court’s order granting the motion to suppress the confession.

The ruling here seems pretty obvious, so it is somewhat surprising the prosecution appealed. The case provides a good illustration of when Miranda warnings are required, however.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak Goldstein