Commonwealth v. Leaner - 2019 PA Super 9, 202 A.3d 749

Rule:

In evaluating Pa. R. Crim. P. 600 issues, the standard of review of a trial court's decision is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law, upon facts and circumstances judicially before the court, after hearing and due consideration. An abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion the law is overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will, as shown by the evidence or the record, discretion is abused. The proper scope of review is limited to the evidence on the record of the Rule 600 evidentiary hearing, and the findings of the trial court. An appellate court must view the facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. 

Facts:

Appellant, Eric Leaner, appeals nunc pro tunc from the April 4, 2014, judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following his conviction by a jury on the charges of second-degree murder, robbery, and possession of an instrument of crime. Leaner appealed. 

Issue:

Did the trial court err in denying the Appellant's motion under Rule 600, and denying his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court held that, pursuant to Pa. R. Crim. P. 600, the trial court did not err in holding the delay attributed to the trial court's crowded docket was "excludable time." Judicial delay could support the grant of an extension of the run date where there was no indication the trial court did not schedule the criminal proceedings at the earliest possible date consistent with the court's business. Trial evidence was sufficient to sustain Leaner’s conviction for second degree murder, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502. The court found that the trial court did not err in determining that a threatened witness was unavailable. Finally, the court held that Leaner’s crimes did not arise from a single criminal act. He committed two distinct robberies: one that was the predicate offense for second-degree murder and a second robbery that occurred as the witness lay on the ground in a semi-conscious state.