If a person in a Bucks County criminal matter is not sentenced for 9 years, is that enough to get a person exonerated because their speedy trial rights have been violated?
The court must use the "Barker Test". Pennsylvania courts follow Barker in resolving claims that procedural delays in criminal cases constitute a substantive due process violation, and we have set forth a four prong test in which the court inquires as follows: (1) whether the delay itself is sufficient to trigger further inquiry; (2) if so, the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant timely asserted his or her rights, and; (4) whether there is any prejudice to the defendant from the delay. The second prong of Barker directs that the reason for the delay be examined. Moreover, deliberate attempts to delay, with the specific purpose of hampering the defense, should be weighted heavily against the government, while a more neutral reason such as negligence should be weighted less heavily.
In one very important case, a Defendant was convicted of various drug-related crimes. He appealed. The trial court granted his release on bail pending his appeal. Specifically, on "May 10, 1989, West was arrested for selling cocaine. He was charged with possession and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. Approximately one year later, on May 11, 1990, West appeared before the trial court, which heard evidence on West's motion to suppress physical evidence. Following that hearing, the court denied West's prayer for relief. On that same date, the court conducted a bench trial and found West guilty of the crimes charged. Thereafter, on July 17, 1991, West was sentenced to serve a term of twenty-seven to fifty-four months of imprisonment." At this point, a Bucks County criminal attorney should be well aware of all of the Barker rules.
His sentence was affirmed. However, he was not recalled to serve his sentence in conformity with Pa. R.A.P. 1763. Defendant remained at liberty for nine years until, pursuant to an arrest warrant, he was arrested and committed to serve his prior criminal sentence. The Supreme Court held that as defendant could not pursue this claim through the Post Conviction Relief Act, the Superior Court properly reviewed it pursuant to habeas corpus. While the Superior Court concluded that the delay was deliberate, that conclusion was contrary to the trial court's conclusion that the delay was not intentional and occurred through unexplained oversight. Thus, the Superior Court erred in re-evaluating the evidence presented before the trial court to reach a different finding. Given the trial court's finding that the nine-year delay was caused by negligence, that factor did not weigh heavily against the State in balancing the Barker due process factors. Also, defendant did not suffer actual prejudice as a result of the nine-year delay he was erroneously at liberty. The cite is Commonwealth v. West, 595 Pa. 483 (Pa. 2007)