Court Opinion

ID: 9950702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 16:16:48.369879+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:35:47.917230
License: Public Domain

J-S02027-24

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    GERARD GETHERS                             :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 465 EDA 2023

       Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered January 24, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Criminal Division
                      at No(s): CP-46-CR-0007289-2019

BEFORE:      LAZARUS, P.J., MURRAY, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*

MEMORANDUM BY MURRAY, J.:                               FILED MARCH 14, 2024

       Gerard Gethers (Appellant) appeals from the judgment of sentence

imposed after the trial court convicted him of one count each of persons not

to possess firearms and firearms not to be carried without a license; and two

counts each of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug

paraphernalia.1      Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his pretrial

motion to dismiss all charges pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.           After careful

review, we affirm.

       The trial court summarized the relevant factual history:

            On October 17, 2019, Corporal Matthew Stadulis of the
       Whitemarsh Township Police Department answered a radio
____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.

1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6105(a)(1), 6106(a)(1); 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(16),
(a)(32).
J-S02027-24

     dispatch initiated by a telephone call from a long-time resident in
     a Lafayette Hill neighborhood reporting a black male and female
     loitering in the area while using narcotics.

     ….

           Without activating his patrol car’s lights or siren, Corporal
     Stadulis drove from the station onto Crescent Avenue, turning
     onto Ridge Pike and then again onto Pine Ridge Drive toward
     Evergreen Lane. The Corporal could see two (2) individuals
     matching the description provided by the 911 caller walking
     toward him from Evergreen Lane[. Corporal Stadulis] pulled over
     to the curbside of the road, stopped his vehicle and exited to have
     a conversation with the male identified as [Appellant] and a
     female companion. [Appellant] and the female stopped to speak
     with the Corporal.

     ….

           Corporal Stadulis opined that his observations of [Appellant]
     were consistent with an individual who had smoked PCP. Even
     though Corporal Stadulis had instructed [Appellant] to take his
     hands out of his pockets on first approach, [Appellant] kept
     putting his hands in his pockets while the Corporal was attempting
     to identify both individuals. Corporal Stadulis determined that
     [Appellant] was in violation of the public intoxication statute and
     [Corporal Stadulis] wait[ed] for backup to arrive before placing
     [Appellant] under arrest.

     ….

     Corporal Stadulis placed [Appellant] under arrest for suspected
     use of PCP and public drunkenness.          During the search of
     [Appellant] incident to arrest, Corporal Stadulis found vials of PCP
     and a marijuana cigarette laced with PCP in [Appellant]’s pockets
     and a revolver in his sock.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/23, at 2-4 (record citations and some paragraph

breaks omitted).

     On October 17, 2019, Corporal Stadulis charged Appellant with the

above drug and firearm offenses. The Commonwealth indicated it was ready

                                    -2-
J-S02027-24

for trial in February 2020.        Id. at 5.     However, during the pendency of

Appellant’s case, our Supreme Court declared a statewide judicial emergency

in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The trial court competently outlined

the Supreme Court’s declarations2 and Montgomery County’s response to the

statewide judicial emergency:

              On March 12, 2020[,] and March 16, 2020, the Pennsylvania
       Supreme Court issued its first orders regarding the Covid-19
       global pandemic, declaring a general statewide judicial
       emergency,     and     authorizing    president   judges    in   the
       Commonwealth to suspend operation of the courts in their judicial
       district to consider the appropriate measures to be taken to
       safeguard the health and safety of court personnel, court users,
       and members of the public. The Court also specifically authorized
       the president judges to suspend the operation of Rule of Criminal
       Procedure 600 within the judicial district. Noting that nothing in
       the order shall affect a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial
       under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions, the Court
       advised that the circumstances giving rise to the order and the
       suspension may be relevant to the constitutional analysis.

               The Honorable Thomas M. DelRicci, P.J.[,] declared a judicial
       emergency in the 38th Judicial District by order on March 12, 2020,
       and issued another order on March 16, 2020, closing all court
       facilities and suspending all court operations. President Judge
       DelRicci’s order of March 16, 2020, declared that the operation of
       Rule of Criminal Procedure 600 shall be suspended beginning
       March 12, 2020.

               By additional orders issued on March 31, 2020[,] April 1,
       2020, and April 28, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
       extended the statewide judicial emergency, suspending Rule 600
       in all judicial districts through at least June 1, 2020, and directing
       the time excluded from the calculation under Rule 600(C).

____________________________________________

2     Covid-19-related     court     orders      are            available       at:
https://www.pacourts.us/ujs-coronavirus-information.

                                           -3-
J-S02027-24

             In his April 14, 2020[,] Declaration, President Judge DelRicci
       included the following language: “Any postponement of criminal
       case scheduling caused by the declaration of this judicial
       emergency shall be considered a court postponement and shall
       constitute excludable time for purposes of the application of Rule
       of Criminal Procedure 600.”

              On May 27, 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued
       an order ceasing the statewide judicial emergency after June 1,
       2020, and allowing the [p]resident [j]udges of the individual
       judicial districts to continue to exercise their emergency powers
       until rescinded by each court.

              President Judge DelRicci [indefinitely] extended the judicial
       emergency in the 38th Judicial district by order entered on May 28,
       2020. On June 3, 2020, President Judge DelRicci issued an order
       declaring that any postponement of criminal case scheduling
       caused by and through the expiration of the judicial emergency
       shall be considered a court postponement constituting excludable
       time for purposes of Rule 600.

       ….

             The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a final order on
       June 21, 2021, declaring that operation of the United Judicial
       System in Pennsylvania return to pre-pandemic status effective
       July 6, 2021, stating, however, that local judicial emergencies
       could remain in effect until August 31, 2021.

               President Judge DelRicci issued an order on August 30,
       2021, declaring that the June 3, 2020[,] order regarding
       application of Rule 600 was vacated as of August 31, 2021, but
       that the emergency declaration extending the judicial emergency
       would remain in effect until further order of the court. The court
       has not issued a subsequent order and the judicial emergency is
       still in effect [as of November 17, 2022].3
____________________________________________

3 By order of court, President Judge Carolyn Carluccio vacated the last order

extending Montgomery County’s declaration of a judicial emergency, and
noted the “[j]udicial [e]mergency has now ended[,]” effective May 11, 2023.
See             Order,            5/10/23,           available           at
https://www.montgomerycountypa.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/5753
(last viewed Feb. 9, 2024).

                                           -4-
J-S02027-24

             The 38th Judicial District Court of Common Pleas began
        conducting criminal jury trials in August of 2021, before Judge
        Carpenter, limited to the most serious homicide cases.

Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/23, at 5-7 (footnote added).

        On June 29, 2022, Appellant filed a motion to dismiss his case for

violation of Rule 600.    He argued, inter alia, that President Judge DelRicci

exceeded his authority in suspending jury trials during periods in which “jury

trials could have been conducted in Montgomery County consistent with

prevailing health and safety norms.” Motion to Dismiss, 6/29/22, at ¶ 95.

According to Appellant, the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence in

bringing his case to trial. Id. ¶ 108. A hearing was scheduled for August 1,

2022, after which the trial court denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss. See,

Order, 11/17/22.

        On January 24, 2023, Appellant waived his right to a trial by jury and

proceeded to a bench trial. See Trial Court Opinion, 7/12/23, at 10. The trial

court convicted Appellant of all counts and, on January 24, 2023, sentenced

him to an aggregate 10 to 20 years in prison, concurrent with a life sentence

imposed in a prior unrelated homicide case.        Id. at 2.   Appellant timely

appealed, and both the trial court and Appellant have complied with Pa.R.A.P.

1925.

        Appellant raises the following issues:

        I.    Did the [trial] court err in finding, for the purposes of
              Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, the delay in bringing [Appellant] to trial
              was attributable to the 38th Judicial District Covid-19

                                       -5-
J-S02027-24

             Judicial Emergency without first determining whether the
             Commonwealth had exercised due diligence in bringing
             [Appellant’s] case to trial?

      II.    Did the [trial] court err in determining that pursuant to the
             38th Judicial District Covid-19 Emergency Orders, the
             period between June 3, 2020[,] and August 31, 2021[,] was
             automatically     excludable     under    Pa.R.Crim.P.   600
             irrespective of the Commonwealth’s due diligence?

      III.   Did the [trial] court err in denying [Appellant’s] Pa.R.Crim.P.
             600 Motion where the Commonwealth was not duly diligent
             in bringing [Appellant’s] case to trial in that it intentionally
             gave priority to other cases post-dating the instant case?

Appellant’s Brief at 3.

      “In general, a trial court’s denial of a Rule 600 motion is reviewed for

an abuse of discretion; however, it is subject to plenary review when the

dispositive question implicates legal issues.” Commonwealth v. Lear, 290

A.3d 709, 718 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d

600, 614 n.3 (Pa. 2021)). “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.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 281 A.3d 320,

325 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citation omitted).

      Pertinently,

             Harth and [Commonwealth v.] Carl[, 276 A.3d 743 (Pa.
      Super. 2022)] frame the inquiry for the effect of emergency orders
      on Rule 600. If an order unambiguously suspends Rule 600
      without qualification, then the period of the suspension is added
      to the run date without considering the Commonwealth’s
      diligence. [See] Carl, 276 A.3d at 751. Alternatively, if an order
      characterizes a delay as a court postponement, then that period

                                       -6-
J-S02027-24

      is only excluded if the trial court determines after a hearing
      that the Commonwealth exercised due diligence through
      the life of the case.

Commonwealth v. Malone, 294 A.3d 1247, 1249 (Pa. Super. 2023)

(emphasis added) (quoting Lear, 290 A.3d at 719).

      As   this   Court   previously   determined,   the   Montgomery   County

emergency orders characterized case delays as court postponements; thus, a

due diligence analysis is required:

      [T]he plain language of the orders reflects that Montgomery
      County did not continue its unqualified suspension of Rule 600
      beyond May 31, 2020. On May 5, 2020, Montgomery County
      ordered that its previous orders would be rescinded effective May
      31, 2020. There were no later orders suspending Rule 600.
      Instead, Montgomery County opted to order[,] on June 3, 2020,
      that any emergency-related delay “shall be considered a court
      postponement and shall constitute excludable time” under Rule
      600(C).

            As in Carl, the plain meaning of the “court postponement”
      provision was to establish a framework for applying Rule 600 to
      any postponement caused by the local judicial emergency. Carl,
      276 A.3d at 750. Unlike in Carl, however, the Montgomery
      County orders did not separately provide that Rule 600 would be
      suspended after May 31, 2020.

             Here, the trial court found, in accordance with the plain
      meaning of the Montgomery County emergency orders, that the
      delay in bringing Lear’s cases to trial was a direct result of the
      judicial emergency. For such judicial delay to be excluded from
      the Rule 600(C) computation, the trial court must find that the
      Commonwealth exercised due diligence. Harth, 252 A.3d at 618.

                                       -7-
J-S02027-24

Lear, 290 A.3d at 720.4

       In reviewing Appellant’s claim, we are cognizant of the following:

             By the terms of Rule 600, the Commonwealth must bring a
       defendant to trial within 365 days from the date upon which a
       written criminal complaint is filed. Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a).
       However, the Rule 600 run date may be adjusted pursuant to the
       computational directives set forth in Subsection (C) of the Rule.
       For purposes of the Rule 600 computation, “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.” Id. 600(C)(1). “Any other
       periods of delay,” including those caused by the defendant, “shall
       be excluded from the computation.” Id. When considering a Rule
       600 motion, the court must identify each period of delay and
       attribute it to the responsible party, then adjust the 365-day tally
       to arrive at the latest date upon which the Commonwealth may
       try the defendant. Absent a demonstration of due diligence,
       establishing that the Commonwealth has done “everything
       reasonable within its power to guarantee that [the] trial
       begins on time,” Commonwealth v. Matis, 551 Pa. 220, 710
       A.2d 12, 17 (Pa. 1998), the Commonwealth’s failure to bring the
       defendant to trial before the expiration of the Rule 600 time period
       constitutes grounds for dismissal of the charges with prejudice.
       See Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(D)(1).

____________________________________________

4 On October 3, 2023, our Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal

limited to the following issue:

       Whether a court must assess the Commonwealth’s due diligence
       during a worldwide pandemic for purposes of Rule 600 before it
       excludes delay attributable to a local judicial emergency during
       which the president judge cancelled and suspended all trials,
       suspended Rule 600 and otherwise excluded judicial delay caused
       by the judicial emergency, and implemented strict procedures to
       protect the public?

Commonwealth v. Lear, 305 A.3d 541 (Pa. 2023) (per curiam).

                                           -8-
J-S02027-24

Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 947 (Pa. 2018) (emphasis

added).

       Mindful of our scope of review, we must preliminarily determine whether

Appellant has waived his issues on appeal for failing to supply this Court with

an adequate record.         The record reflects that Appellant requested “the

transcript of all proceedings held in this matter[.]” Request for Transcripts,

2/17/23 (emphasis omitted).5 However, the certified record does not contain

a transcript of the August 1, 2022, Rule 600 hearing.           Indeed, our review

discloses that no transcripts were lodged of record in the instant case. In view

of this deficit, the Commonwealth asks this Court to deem Appellant’s issues

waived, noting “[t]his Court’s review of the Rule 600 claim depends, in part,

on [the Rule 600 hearing] transcript.”           Commonwealth’s Brief at 11.     We

agree.

       Our decisional law underscores an appellant’s responsibility to ensure

the record is complete for our review. Where there is no indication in the

record that a relevant document was inadvertently omitted, “it is not

incumbent upon this Court to expend time, effort and manpower scouting

around judicial chambers or the various prothonotaries’ offices of the courts

of   common       pleas    for    the    purpose    of   unearthing   transcripts[.]”

____________________________________________

5 The record does not disclose whether Appellant complied with Montgomery

County Rule of Judicial Administration 4009(F)(1), which requires that “[a]ll
requests for transcripts shall be set forth on the standardized form available
at www.montcopa.org/court.”

                                           -9-
J-S02027-24

Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7-8 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc)

(citation omitted).     However, if there is evidence of the existence of such

necessary documents, “we might well make an informal inquiry to see if there

was an error in transmitting the certified record to this Court.” Id. at 8.

       We might also formally remand the matter to the trial court to
       ascertain whether notes of testimony or other documentation can
       be located and transmitted. [Commonwealth v. O’Black, 897
       A.2d 1234, 1238 (Pa. Super. 2006).] If a remand is necessary, it
       is appropriate to direct the trial court to determine why the
       necessary documentation was omitted from the certified record.
       [Commonwealth v. ]Williams, 715 A.2d [1101, ]1107 [(Pa.
       1998)]. An appellant should not be denied appellate review if the
       failure to transmit the entire record was caused by an
       “extraordinary breakdown in the judicial process.” Id. at
       1106. However, if the appellant caused a delay or other problems
       in transmitting the certified record, then he or she is not entitled
       to relief and the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
       Id. See Commonwealth v. Barge, 560 Pa. 179, 743 A.2d 429,
       429–30 (1999) (holding that if documents are missing from the
       certified record because of a default by court personnel, an
       appellant is entitled to have his claims resolved on the merits, but
       if the absence of the evidence is attributable to the appellant’s
       failure to comply with the relevant procedural rules, the claims will
       be deemed to have been waived).

Id. (emphasis added).

       Here, Appellant requested transcripts and the trial court and Appellant

cited to notes of testimony6 from an August 1, 2022, hearing.                  Our

Prothonotary made an informal inquiry with the trial court to ascertain the

____________________________________________

6 The scant references to the record of the August 1, 2022, hearing do not

supply this Court with sufficient information to undertake a merits analysis as
to whether the Commonwealth acted with due diligence in bringing Appellant’s
case to trial.

                                          - 10 -
J-S02027-24

whereabouts of the transcript. The trial court located only the January 24,

2023, nonjury trial transcript. Thus, the certified record includes no transcript

from the Rule 600 hearing.

      Appellant acknowledges our scope of review “is limited to the findings

of the trial court and the evidence on the record of the Rule 600

hearing[.]”       Appellant’s   Brief     at     4   (emphasis   added)   (quoting

Commonwealth v. Meadius, 870 A.2d 802, 805 (Pa. 2005)). “Whether a

default with regard to the contents of the certified record warrants a finding

of waiver is a question that must be evaluated under the particular facts and

circumstances of a specific appeal.”       Commonwealth v. Bongiorno, 905

A.2d 998, 1001 (Pa. Super. 2006) (en banc).

      Our appellate rules provide a remedy for missing transcripts:

      [I]f a transcript is unavailable, the appellant may prepare a
      statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available
      means, including his recollection. The statement shall be served
      on the appellee, who may serve objections or propose
      amendments thereto within ten days after service. Thereupon the
      statement and any objections or proposed amendments shall be
      submitted to the lower court for settlement and approval and as
      settled and approved shall be included by the clerk of the lower
      court in the record on appeal.

Pa.R.A.P. 1923.

      Here, Appellant did not avail himself of the remedy provided by Rule

1923. Although the Commonwealth confirmed the absence of the necessary

transcript, Appellant filed no reply brief addressing this matter. See O’Black,

897 A.2d at 1238 (deeming issues waived where a transcript was not docketed

                                        - 11 -
J-S02027-24

and the defendant “did not file a reply brief or take any steps to ascertain if

the transcript could be included in the record”).

       Our review is hampered by the absence of the Rule 600 hearing

transcript. Appellant was aware of the significance of this transcript, but took

no action to ensure it was transmitted with the certified record or avail himself

of the remedy provided by Rule 1923.               Accordingly, we deem his issues

waived.7 See Commonwealth v. Harlan, 208 A.3d 497, 501 (Pa. Super.

2019) (“Our law is unequivocal that the responsibility rests upon the appellant

to ensure that the record certified on appeal is complete in the sense that it

contains all of the materials necessary for the reviewing court to perform its

duty.”   (quoting Preston, 904 A.2d at 7)); see also Commonwealth v.

McCready, 295 A.3d 292, 296 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2023) (“When notes of

testimony are cited by the parties, we have reason to believe that these

records exist.     However, the responsibility rests on the appellant to

ensure that the record certified on appeal is complete.” (internal

citations and quotation marks omitted; emphasis added)).

       Judgment of sentence affirmed.

____________________________________________

7 We note that Appellant is not precluded from addressing appellate counsel’s

failure to supply an adequate record in a timely Post Conviction Relief Act
Petition, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-9546.

                                          - 12 -
J-S02027-24

Date: 3/14/2024

                  - 13 -