Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, v. John Plain

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, v. John Plain

Criminal Action-Constitutional Law-Right to a Speedy Trial-Sixth Amendment-Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 600-Excludable Time-Extradition-Election by the Commonwealth-Impact-Due Diligence-Incarceration in Another Jurisdiction

The Commonwealth elected not to seek extradition of John Plain (“Defendant”), who was charged in 2019 with Driving Under the Influence and Accidents Involving Death or Injury after law enforcement completed its investigation into the facts of the case and an arrest warrant was issued.  Five (5) years had passed when Defendant came to be in the custody of law enforcement in Lebanon County.  Following arrest for the above-stated charges, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that the Commonwealth failed to use due diligence to bring him to trial in a prompt fashion.

1.  The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that an accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.

2.  Pa.R.Crim.P. Rule 600 prohibits pretrial incarceration for more than 180 days and any prosecution after 365 days.

3.  Generally, time that passes when a defendant escapes prosecution via flight is excludable for purposes of a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. 

4.  However, periods of delay at any stage of the proceedings caused by the Commonwealth when the Commonwealth has failed to exercise due diligence shall be included in the computation of the time within which trial must commence. 

5.  The burden of establishing whether due diligence exists to warrant an extension of the Rule 600 deadlines is upon the Commonwealth, not the defendant.

6.  All that is required of due diligence is that the Commonwealth show that it put forth reasonable effort to locate a defendant. 

7.  Mere incarceration in another state does not automatically render a defendant unavailable for Rule 600 purposes. 

8.  Whether Pennsylvania authorities request extradition is an important factor that must be weighed in assessing due diligence. 

9.  If extradition proceedings are not initiated, time that a defendant spends in prison in another jurisdiction is not excludable for purposes of Rule 600. 

10.  Where the Commonwealth elected not to seek extradition of Defendant at the time of his arrest, the law enforcement agent responsible for locating Defendant stated that this decision hampered efforts to locate Defendant and information about Defendant’s whereabouts would have been communicated to Lebanon County significantly in advance of 2024 if a decision to extradite had been rendered when the arrest warrant had been issued, the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence to locate Defendant warranting dismissal of charges under Rule 600.

L.C.C.C.P. No. CR-1074-2024, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, January 15, 2025.