Opinion
J-S36017-18 No. 3900 EDA 2017
12-11-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RYAN M. ECKHART, Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence November 14, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County
Criminal Division at No.: CP-13-CR-0000898-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., DUBOW, J., and KUNSELMAN, J. MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.:
Appellant, Ryan M. Eckhart, appeals from the November 14, 2017 Judgment of Sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County following the revocation of his parole. We affirm on the basis of the trial court's January 22, 2018 Opinion.
In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) Opinion, the trial court set forth the underlying facts. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 1/22/18, at 1-5. Briefly, on January 19, 2012, Appellant entered a guilty plea to one count of Driving Under the Influence of a Controlled Substance. The trial court imposed a term of ninety days to five years' imprisonment.
Over the next several years, the court revoked Appellant's parole several times for his failure to comply with a zero-tolerance policy for drug use and possession, as well as missed drug tests.
On October 31, 2016, Carbon County Adult Probation Officer Kimberly Cooper filed a Petition to Revoke Appellant's parole, alleging that Appellant (1) tested positive for amphetamines on September 14, 2016; (2) failed to submit a scheduled urine screen on October 5, 2016; and (3) "was unsuccessfully discharged" from drug and alcohol treatment on October 18, 2016. Petition to Revoke, 10/31/16. Officer Cooper also requested that the court issue an arrest warrant for Appellant. Due to a breakdown in the court's operation, the court did not properly process and file the Petition or issue an arrest warrant.
On August 4, 2017, the Clerk of Courts issued the arrest warrant for Appellant. Officers arrested Appellant on August 8, 2017, and served him with the revocation Petition.
Officer Cooper testified that she discovered the error, notified the court, and submitted an expedited request for the issuance of the arrest warrant. N.T. VOP, 10/27/17, at 18-19.
On October 27, 2017, the trial court, sitting as the parole violation ("VOP") court, conducted a VOP hearing at which Officer Cooper and Appellant testified. Appellant stipulated to the violations, but challenged the timeliness of the delayed revocation hearing and the Commonwealth's diligence pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 708. See N.T. VOP, 10/27/17, at 4, 9, 44-45.
After consideration of the foregoing and additional briefing by the parties, the VOP court found that Appellant had violated his parole. On November 14, 2017, the VOP court recommitted Appellant for 202 days' incarceration with credit for time served.
Appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal. Both Appellant and the VOP court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925.
Appellant presents one issue for our review:
Whether the [t]rial [c]ourt erred when it found the one year delay in resolving the Commonwealth's petition to revoke [Appellant's] parole reasonable under Pa.R.Crim.P. 708?Appellant's Brief at 4.
Appellant avers that the VOP court violated his right to a speedy revocation hearing under Pa.R.Crim.P. 708. Appellant's Brief at 10-20. Rule 708 provides, in part, that a parole revocation hearing must be "held as speedily as possible at which the defendant is present and represented by counsel." Pa.R.Crim.P. 708(B)(1) (emphasis added). "In evaluating the reasonableness of a delay, the court examines three factors: the length of the delay; the reasons for the delay; and the prejudice resulting to the defendant from the delay." Commonwealth v. Clark , 847 A.2d 122, 124 (Pa. Super. 2004). "When examining the reasons for the delay, the court looks at the circumstances surrounding the delay to determine whether the Commonwealth acted with due diligence in scheduling the revocation hearing." Commonwealth v. Christmas , 995 A.2d 1259, 1263 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citing Clark , 847 A.2d at 124).
After a thorough review of the certified record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the trial court Opinion, we conclude that there is no merit to Appellant's challenge. The Honorable Roger N. Nanovic, sitting as the VOP court, has authored a comprehensive, thorough, and well-reasoned Opinion, citing the record and relevant case law in addressing Appellant's claim. See Trial Court Opinion, filed 1/22/18, at 5-12 (concluding that there is no merit to Appellant's claim because the one-year delay did not prejudice Appellant insofar as (1) his purported loss of a mitigation argument is speculative and does not qualify as "the loss of essential witnesses or evidence" as contemplated by the rule and case law, particularly where Appellant stipulated to his violations; and (2) Appellant's contention that he would have been released from prison upon reaching his "maximum date" had he been arrested earlier is speculative). We, thus, affirm on the basis of the trial court's January 22, 2018 Opinion.
The parties are instructed to attach a copy of the trial court's January 22, 2018 Opinion to all future filings.
Judgment of Sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 12/11/18
Image materials not available for display.