Court Opinion

ID: 9378488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 17:08:19.830905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.627452
License: Public Domain

J-S01028-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

    COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
                                               :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                               :
                v.                             :
                                               :
                                               :
    WESLEY C. MCNEIL-ZUCK                      :
                                               :
                       Appellant               :   No. 675 WDA 2022

         Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered May 25, 2022,
                  in the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County,
            Criminal Division at No(s): CP-25-CR-0000856-2021.

BEFORE:      BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and COLINS, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY KUNSELMAN, J.:                        FILED: March 10, 2023

        Wesley McNeil-Zuck appeals from the judgment of sentence entered

following his conviction for two counts of driving under the influence (DUI).

He challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss pursuant to

Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 600. We affirm.

        On March 8, 2021, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper, James Szobota,

filed a criminal complaint charging McNeil-Zuck with three counts of DUI and

one count of careless driving.1 On March 31, 2021, McNeil-Zuck waived his

preliminary hearing, the charge of careless driving was dismissed, and the

case proceeded to court. According to the Commonwealth, on July 2, 2021,

McNeil-Zuck requested a date certain for a non-jury trial. On July 20, 2021,
____________________________________________

*   Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
1   75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3802(d)(2), (d)(1)(ii), and (d)(1)(iii) and 3714(a).
J-S01028-23

the trial court scheduled McNeil-Zuck’s case for a non-jury trial on November

15, 2021.

       On October 13, 2021, the Commonwealth moved to continue the non-

jury trial based on the unavailability of its forensic scientist. Accordingly, the

trial court rescheduled the non-jury trial for January 28, 2022. On January

26, 2022, the Commonwealth again moved to continue the non-jury trial for

the same reason. The trial court rescheduled the non-jury trial for April 25,

2022. The Commonwealth informed the trial court that its forensic scientist

would be unavailable on the scheduled trial date. On February 11, 2022, the

trial court moved up the date for the non-jury trial to March 25, 2022.

       On March 10, 2022, however, McNeil-Zuck moved to dismiss the

charges against him with prejudice under Rule 600. In his motion, he stated

that the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence because it failed to list

the Rule 600 date in either of its motions to continue.

       The trial court ordered the Commonwealth to reply to McNeil-Zuck’s

Rule 600 motion. The Commonwealth replied one day late, asserting that the

time from July 2, 2021 to November 15, 2021 should run against McNeil-Zuck

and that the Commonwealth was diligent in its efforts to secure its scientist

for trial.

       Prior to the non-jury trial on March 25, 2022, the trial court heard

argument on McNeil-Zuck’s Rule 600 motion.          It explained its reasons for

denying the motion on the record:

                                      -2-
J-S01028-23

             All right. Well, after reviewing the pleadings and the docket,
      the Court finds that [McNeil-Zuck] was not in jail during this time
      period. The trial is starting a few weeks past the 365-day rule,
      and I do note the non-jury trial was set a few times. However,
      the . . . key witness for the Commonwealth was not available, so
      that did require it shifting around, and the court schedule in
      addition has been extremely crowded due to the backlog of cases
      from the COVID problem, so we were not able to fit it in earlier
      like we would have liked to [do]. So I find that any delay,
      therefore, is beyond the control of the Commonwealth, both
      because of the unavailability of the witness and because of the
      court schedule, and I find no further lack of due diligence by the
      Commonwealth, so the motion is denied.

N.T., 3/25/22, at 5–6. The trial court entered a written order reflecting the

same. It denied McNeil-Zuck’s motion for an interlocutory appeal. The court

proceeded with the non-jury trial and found McNeil-Zuck not guilty of one

count of DUI and guilty of two other counts of DUI.

      On May 25, 2022, the trial sentenced McNeil-Zuck to probation with

restrictive conditions. McNeil-Zuck timely appealed. McNeil-Zuck and the trial

court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925.

      McNeil-Zuck presents one question for our review: “Whether the trial

court committed an abuse of discretion and/or error of law when it failed to

grant [McNeil-Zuck’s] motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 600?” McNeil-Zuck’s

Brief at 3.

      We review a trial court’s Rule 600 ruling for an abuse of discretion.

Commonwealth v. Carl, 276 A.3d 743, 748 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citing

Commonwealth v. Bethea, 185 A.3d 364, 370 (Pa. Super. 2018)).                 Our

scope of review is the evidence of record at the Rule 600 hearing and the trial

court’s findings, viewed in a light most favorable to the prevailing party. Id.

                                      -3-
J-S01028-23

     We observe that both McNeil-Zuck and the Commonwealth quote the

former version of Rule 600 and related case law distinguishing between

“excludable time” and “excusable delay.”     Since Rule 600 was replaced in

2013, it no longer involves such a distinction. Commonwealth v. Wiggins,

248 A.3d 1285, 1289 (Pa. Super. 2021). Currently, Rule 600 provides in part:

     (A) Commencement of Trial; Time for Trial

                                *     *      *

     (2) Trial shall commence within the following time periods.

           (a) Trial in a court case in which a written complaint is filed
           against the defendant shall commence within 365 days from
           the date on which the complaint is filed.

                                *     *      *

     (C) Computation of Time

     (1) For purposes of paragraph (A), 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. Any other periods of delay shall be excluded from the
     computation.

                                *     *      *

     (D) Remedies

     (1) When a defendant has not been brought to trial within the time
     periods set forth in paragraph (A), at any time before trial, the
     defendant’s attorney, or the defendant if unrepresented, may file
     a written motion requesting that the charges be dismissed with
     prejudice on the ground that this rule has been violated. A copy
     of the motion shall be served on the attorney for the
     Commonwealth concurrently with filing. The judge shall conduct
     a hearing on the motion.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(A)(2)(a), (C)(1), (D)(1).

                                    -4-
J-S01028-23

      Our Supreme Court has instructed that before a period of delay may be

excluded from the computation under Rule 600(C)(1), the trial court must first

determine whether the Commonwealth exercised due diligence throughout the

proceedings. Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d 600, 618 (Pa. 2021). The

Commonwealth bears the burden of proving due diligence by a preponderance

of the evidence.     Carl, 276 A.3d 743, 748 (Pa. Super. 2022) (citing

Commonwealth v. Kearse, 890 A.2d 388, 393 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

      Here, the trial court found that the delay in bringing McNeil-Zuck to trial

was caused by a court case backlog and the unavailability of a Commonwealth

witness. N.T., 3/25/22, at 5–6. Despite its determination that these factors

were outside the control of the Commonwealth, the trial court had to grant

McNeil-Zuck’s motion to dismiss unless the Commonwealth proved that it

exercised due diligence throughout the life of the case. Harth, 252 A.3d at

618. Because the trial court found that the Commonwealth had exercised due

diligence, it denied McNeil-Zuck’s motion.

      We discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s findings. The record

supports the conclusion that the Commonwealth exercised due diligence

despite the repeated unavailability of its witness. See Commonwealth v.

Peterson, 19 A.3d 1131, 1138 (Pa. Super. 2011) (en banc) (collecting cases

supporting due diligence despite the unavailability of a Commonwealth

witness). We therefore affirm.

      Judgment of sentence affirmed.

                                      -5-
J-S01028-23

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary

Date: 3/10/2023

                          -6-