Opinion
J-S65024-17 No. 781 EDA 2017
02-06-2018
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. HENRY F. WORTHINGTON JR. Appellant
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 2, 2017
In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton
County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-48-CR-0001981-2013 BEFORE: OLSON, J., OTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J. MEMORANDUM BY OTT, J.:
Henry F. Worthington, Jr. appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on February 2, 2017, in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County following his conviction on two counts of failure to register, as required under Megan's Law. He was sentenced to a term of 48 to 96 months' incarceration. In this timely appeal, Worthington argues his speedy trial rights were violated under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, 42 Pa.C.S. § 9109, Articles III(a) and IV(c), as well as under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. After a thorough review of the submissions by the parties, relevant law, and the certified record, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion, specifically pages 7-14.
18 Pa.C.S. § 4915(a)(1), (2).
42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9791-9799. The charges in this case were initially filed against Worthington on June 11, 2012. Worthington then immediately fled the jurisdiction.
Worthington was originally convicted of three counts of failing to register. His original aggregate sentence was for 176 to 352 months' incarceration. The trial court notes in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that the charge of violating 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915(a)(3) and the sentence attendant thereto has been rescinded and the sentences for the other two charges have been merged, resulting in the current sentence of 48 to 96 months' incarceration.
All other issues addressed by the trial court in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion were abandoned on appeal by Worthington. --------
Initially,
Our standard of review of a Rule 600 determination is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Solano , 588 Pa. 716, 906 A.2d 1180, 1186 (2006). "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 ... discretion is abused." Commonwealth v. Wright , 599 Pa. 270, 961 A.2d 119, 142 (2008) (citations omitted). Our scope of review is limited to the record evidence from the speedy trial hearing and the findings of the lower court, reviewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Solano , at 1186.Commonwealth v. Selenski , 994 A.2d 1083, 1087-88 (Pa. 2010).
The standard of review for cases under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers is consistent with those for allegations of speedy trial violations, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. See Commonwealth v. Woods , 663 A.2d 803 (Pa. Super. 1995), cited with approval in Commonwealth v. Montiore , 720 A.2d 738, 741 (Pa. 1998), cert. denied, 26 U.S. 1098 (1999).
The factual and procedural history as well as the legal analysis of this matter are all ably set forth in the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion. Essentially, we find no fault with the trial court's assessment that the Commonwealth demonstrated due diligence in attempting to locate Worthington after he fled the jurisdiction. Additionally, the trial court neither abused its discretion nor committed an error of law in determining that Worthington was brought to trial within the 180-day period proscribed by Pa.R.Crim.P. 600. Because the trial court has provided a thorough description of the underlying facts as well as an error free legal analysis, similarly free from abuse of discretion, we rely upon the trial court's Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion.
Parties are directed to attach a copy of the trial court's February 2, 2017 decision in the event of further proceedings.
Judgment of sentence affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 2/6/18
Image materials not available for display.