J-S63033-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

v.

CKARON HANDY

 Appellant No. 400 EDA 2015

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence January 14, 2015

in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Criminal Division

at No(s): CP-09-CR-0000504-2013

BEFORE: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD,*J.

MEMORANDUM BY FITZGERALD, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2016

Appellant, Ckaron Handy, appeals from the judgment of sentence of 

life plus two-and-one-half to five years’ imprisonment imposed after a jury 

found him guilty of second-degree murder,1robbery,2and possessing 

instruments of crime.3 He claims the trial court erred in denying his pre-trial 

motion for discharge based on a pre-arrest delay. We affirm. 

Appellant’s conviction arises out of the fatal shooting of Kevin Battista 

(“Decedent”) in the early morning hours of December 7, 2006. Decedent 

and Tiffany Calvanese were driving in Decedent’s truck in Bristol Township. 

Decedent stopped in the Bloomsdale neighborhood, which was known as an 

 

*

Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S. § 2502(b). 

2 18 Pa.C.S. § 3701(a)(1)(i), (ii). 

3 18 Pa.C.S. § 907(b). 
J-S63033-16

- 2 -

open-air drug market. At least two males approached Decedent’s vehicle, 

and Decedent asked for “$60 worth.” The male by the driver’s window drew 

a firearm and stated, “I’ll give you to the count of three.” Decedent 

attempted to drive away, and the male fired the weapon and killed 

Decedent. 

The lead investigator, Detective Timothy Fuhrmann, received 

information that the person who shot Decedent was wearing a dark jacket 

with fur around the collar or hood. Additionally, at least one witness, Sandy 

Wilson, identified the shooter as Jarrel Hopkins hours after the shooting. 

Officer Dennis Leighton later reported that approximately fifteen minutes 

before the shooting, he saw Appellant wearing a faux fur coat and Hopkins 

wearing a dark jacket with fur lining. In 2007, Wilson gave Detective 

Fuhrmann a second statement identifying Hopkins. Detective Fuhrmann, 

however, did not believe Hopkins was a viable suspect. 

The police also received information that Appellant was the shooter, 

including a report that Appellant admitted shooting Decedent. The 

Commonwealth presented its case to an investigating grand jury on April 16, 

2009. The grand jury recommended charges against Appellant on August 

19, 2010. More than two years later, on October 1, 2012, the 

Commonwealth charged Appellant. Appellant filed a pre-trial motion 

challenging the pre-arrest delay. The trial court deferred ruling on the 

motion until the Commonwealth presented its case at trial. 
J-S63033-16

- 3 -

A jury was empaneled on December 8, 2014, and trial commenced on 

December 9, 2014. At trial, Calvanese described the shooting and testified 

that the shooter was wearing a dark jacket with a fur-trimmed hood. N.T. 

Trial, 12/9/14, at 228. She also testified that the shooter was the taller of 

the two men who approached Decedent’s vehicle. Id. at 225, 227. 

Additionally, the Commonwealth called Jimmy Lee Cooper, James Williams, 

and Omar Brooks,4 who were in the area around the time of the shooting. 

N.T. Trial, 12/10/14, at 235; N.T. Trial, 12/11/14, at 54, 134. Cooper and 

Williams stated that they saw Appellant near Decedent’s truck and later 

heard a bang. N.T. Trial, 12/10/14, at 243-44, 249; N.T. Trial, 12/11/14, at 

75-76. According to Williams, Appellant gave him the gun used to kill 

Decedent.5 N.T. Trial, 12/11/14, at 79. Brooks testified he observed the 

shooting, but did not know who the shooter was. Id. at 149. However, 

Brooks stated that Appellant told him he killed Decedent. Id. at 150. 

When called by the Commonwealth, Wilson testified that she could not 

recall the events of December 7, 2006, and did not remember giving 

statements to the police. N.T. Trial, 12/10/14, at 50-52. Wilson denied 

 

4 As established by the trial evidence, the prosecution of this case was 

difficult because many of the witnesses were either sellers or users of drugs. 

Cooper, Williams, and Brooks also had significant criminal records or gave 

statements implicating Appellant while facing unrelated charges. 

 

5 Williams stated he later shot another person in the same neighborhood 

using the gun Appellant gave him. Williams pleaded guilty to voluntary 

manslaughter.
J-S63033-16

- 4 -

seeing anyone shoot Decedent. Id. at 53-54. Detective Fuhrmann, 

however, testified that Wilson gave statements identifying Hopkins as the 

shooter, but that he found her statements to be inconsistent and her 

identification to be unreliable. Id. at 117-19, 128-29, 131. Hopkins also 

testified at trial and denied any involvement in the shooting. Id. at 60. 

Appellant called Detective Fuhrmann to testify that a possible witness, Kyle 

Page, who previously identified Appellant as the shooter, was incarcerated at 

the time of the shooting. N.T. Trial, 12/12/14, at 20-21. Appellant did not 

testify or present additional evidence. 

On December 12, 2014, the jury found Appellant guilty of seconddegree murder and the related offenses. On January 14, 2015, the trial 

court sentenced Appellant. Appellant timely appealed and complied with the 

court’s order to submit a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.

Appellant’s sole claim on appeal is that the pre-arrest delay warranted 

dismissal of the charges against him. See Appellant’s Brief at 4. He asserts 

“that the delay was the product of intentional, bad faith, or reckless conduct 

by the prosecution” that resulted in “the loss of critical defense testimony 

through memory” and “meaningfully impaired . . . his ability to defend 

against the charges.” See id. at 8-10. In support, Appellant notes that 

Wilson identified Hopkins as the shooter shortly after the incident, but was 

unable to recall the shooting when she testified at trial. See id. No relief is 

due. 
J-S63033-16

- 5 -

“A trial court’s conclusion that pre-arrest delay was reasonable under 

the facts of a particular case is within the discretion of the trial judge. We 

will reverse only if there is insufficient evidence in the record to support the 

lower court’s determination.” Commonwealth v. Montalvo, 641 A.2d 

1176, 1182 (Pa. Super. 1994) (citations omitted).

To prevail on a claim of violation of due process based 

on pre-arrest delay, a defendant must first establish that 

the delay caused him actual prejudice. See 

Commonwealth v. Louden, 569 Pa. 245, 250, 803 A.2d 

1181, 1184 (2002). In Louden, our Supreme Court 

explained that

[i]n order for a defendant to show actual prejudice, 

he or she must show that he or she was 

meaningfully impaired in his or her ability to defend 

against the state’s charges to such an extent that 

the disposition of the criminal proceedings was likely 

affected. This kind of prejudice is commonly 

demonstrated by the loss of documentary evidence 

or the unavailability of a key witness. It is not 

sufficient for a defendant to make speculative or 

conclusory claims of possible prejudice as a result of 

the passage of time. When a defendant claims 

prejudice through the absence of witnesses, he or 

she must show in what specific manner missing 

witnesses would have aided the defense. . . . 

Furthermore, it is the defendant’s burden to show 

that the lost testimony or information is not available 

through other means. 

Commonwealth v. Tielsch, 934 A.2d 81, 91-92 (Pa. Super. 2007) (some 

citations omitted). 

Following our review, we concur with the trial court’s determination 

that Appellant did not establish actual prejudice. See Trial Ct. Op., 12/8/15, 

at 12. Appellant had available Wilson’s prior statements implicating Hopkins 
J-S63033-16

- 6 -

and was able to use those statements during his cross-examination of 

Detective Fuhrmann. See N.T., 12/10/14, 190-194. Thus, the information 

that Appellant claims was lost was available through other means, and he 

has not established that he “was meaningfully impaired in his . . . ability to 

defend against the state’s charges to such an extent that the disposition of 

the criminal proceedings was likely affected.” See Tielsch, 943 A.2d at 92. 

Accordingly, we discern no error or abuse of discretion in the trial 

court’s denial of Appellant’s pre-trial motion for discharge based on the prearrest delay. As Appellant’s only claim on appeal does not warrant relief, we 

must affirm the judgment of sentence. 

Judgment of sentence affirmed. 

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/18/2016