COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JERALD LATEITH BROWN :
:
Appellant : No. 897 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 19, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003336-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
CONCURRING OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: AUGUST 10, 2022
In this case, Appellant appealed the Judgment of Sentence and this
Court remanded the case for the production of documents, a new suppression
hearing and, depending on the decision of the suppression court, a new trial.
After remand, the Commonwealth failed to take any action to prosecute this
case within 365 days. Appellant filed a Rule 600 Motion, which the trial court
denied.
The Majority Opinion affirms the decision of the trial based upon its
reading of Rule 600(A)(2)(e). Rule 600(A)(2)(e) provides that “when an
appellate court has remanded a case to the trial court, the new trial shall
commence within 365 days from the date of the written notice from the
appellate court to the parties that the record was remanded.” Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(A)(2)(e) (emphasis added). The Majority concludes that since Rule
600(A)(2)(e) only refers to “the new trial,” the time limitations set forth in
J-S05031-22
Rule 600 do not apply to the Commonwealth in this case because the Superior
Court did not remand for a new trial, but rather a new suppression hearing.
Maj. Op. at 10. I am constrained to agree with this statutory construction of
Rule 600(A)(2)(e) and join the Majority Opinion.
I, however, write separately to express my dismay that the
Commonwealth, following our remand, took no action for more than a year to
prosecute this case. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the
Commonwealth has an obligation to proceed with due diligence at all times
during the pendency of a case. See generally Commonwealth v. Harth,
, 618 (Pa. 2021) (discussing Rule 600 and the Commonwealth’s
due diligence requirement throughout a case).
I urge the Pennsylvania Criminal Procedural Rules Committee to
evaluate whether it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to have no time
requirement to prosecute a case when this Court remands a case for a
proceeding other than a trial. I suggest that the Committee consider imposing
the one-year time limitation on not only trials, but also any proceeding for
which Superior Court remands a case.
-2-
J-S05031-22
2022 PA Super 138
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
JERALD LATEITH BROWN :
:
Appellant : No. 897 MDA 2021
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 19, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division at
No(s): CP-22-CR-0003336-2015
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STABILE, J., and DUBOW, J.
CONCURRING OPINION BY DUBOW, J.: FILED: AUGUST 10, 2022
In this case, Appellant appealed the Judgment of Sentence and this
Court remanded the case for the production of documents, a new suppression
hearing and, depending on the decision of the suppression court, a new trial.
After remand, the Commonwealth failed to take any action to prosecute this
case within 365 days. Appellant filed a Rule 600 Motion, which the trial court
denied.
The Majority Opinion affirms the decision of the trial based upon its
reading of Rule 600(A)(2)(e). Rule 600(A)(2)(e) provides that “when an
appellate court has remanded a case to the trial court, the new trial shall
commence within 365 days from the date of the written notice from the
appellate court to the parties that the record was remanded.” Pa.R.Crim.P.
600(A)(2)(e) (emphasis added). The Majority concludes that since Rule
600(A)(2)(e) only refers to “the new trial,” the time limitations set forth in
J-S05031-22
Rule 600 do not apply to the Commonwealth in this case because the Superior
Court did not remand for a new trial, but rather a new suppression hearing.
Maj. Op. at 10. I am constrained to agree with this statutory construction of
Rule 600(A)(2)(e) and join the Majority Opinion.
I, however, write separately to express my dismay that the
Commonwealth, following our remand, took no action for more than a year to
prosecute this case. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the
Commonwealth has an obligation to proceed with due diligence at all times
during the pendency of a case. See generally Commonwealth v. Harth,
, 618 (Pa. 2021) (discussing Rule 600 and the Commonwealth’s
due diligence requirement throughout a case).
I urge the Pennsylvania Criminal Procedural Rules Committee to
evaluate whether it is appropriate for the Commonwealth to have no time
requirement to prosecute a case when this Court remands a case for a
proceeding other than a trial. I suggest that the Committee consider imposing
the one-year time limitation on not only trials, but also any proceeding for
which Superior Court remands a case.
-2-
