Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

The Pennsylvania Bulletin website includes the following: Rulemakings by State agencies; Proposed Rulemakings by State agencies; State agency notices; the Governor’s Proclamations and Executive Orders; Actions by the General Assembly; and Statewide and local court rules.

PA Bulletin, Doc. No. 16-2185

THE COURTS

Title 234—RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

[ 234 PA. CODE CH. 5 ]

Order Amending Rule 540 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure; No. 483 Criminal Procedural Rules Doc.

[46 Pa.B. 7809]
[Saturday, December 17, 2016]

Order

Per Curiam

And Now, this 30th day of November, 2016, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 45 Pa.B. 5915 (October 3, 2015), and a Final Report to be published with this Order:

 It is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that the amendments to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 540 are adopted, in the following form.

 This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective April 1, 2017.

Annex A

TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES

PART D. Proceedings in Court Cases Before Issuing Authorities

Rule 540. Preliminary Arraignment.

*  *  *  *  *

 (G) Unless the preliminary hearing is waived by a defendant who is represented by counsel, or the attorney for the Commonwealth is presenting the case to an indicting grand jury pursuant to Rule 556.2, the issuing authority shall:

 (1)  fix a day and hour for a preliminary hearing which shall not be later than 14 days after the preliminary arraignment if the defendant is in custody on the current case only and no later than 21 days if the defendant is not in custody [unless:] or is in custody but not on the current case only unless extended for cause shown; and

[(a) extended for cause shown; or

(b) the issuing authority fixes an earlier date upon request of the defendant or defense counsel with the consent of the complainant and the attorney for the Commonwealth; and]

 (2) give the defendant notice, orally and in writing,

*  *  *  *  *

Comment

*  *  *  *  *

 For public access to arrest warrant information, see Rules 513, 513.1, and Commonwealth v. Fenstermaker, [515 Pa. 501,] 530 A.2d 414 (Pa. 1987).

*  *  *  *  *

 Paragraph (G)(2)(c) requires that the defendant be advised of the consequences of failing to appear for any court proceeding. See Rule 602 concerning a defendant's failure to appear for trial; see also Commonwealth v. Bond, 693 A.2d 220, 223 (Pa. Super. 1997) (''[A] defendant who is unaware of the charges against him, unaware of the establishment of his trial date or is absent involuntarily is not absent 'without cause.''').

There have been some judicial districts in which the practice has been to set a date for the preliminary hearing within the time limits of this rule with no intention of a preliminary hearing actually taking place on that date; instead, the preliminary hearing is automatically continued by the court. This practice is inconsistent with the intent of the rule.

 Nothing in these rules gives the defendant's parents, guardian, or other custodian legal standing in the matter being heard by the court or creates a right of the defendant to have his or her parents, guardian, or other custodian present.

See Rule 1003(D) for the procedures governing preliminary arraignments in the Philadelphia Municipal Court.

See Chapter 5, Part H, Rules 595, 596, 597, and 598, for the procedures governing requests for transfer from criminal proceedings to juvenile proceedings pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6322 in cases in which the defendant was under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and charged with one of the offenses excluded from the definition of ''delinquent act'' in paragraphs (2)(i), (2)(ii), and (2)(iii) of 42 Pa.C.S. § 6302.

Official Note: Original Rule 119 adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965; suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 119 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 140 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended April 26, 1979, effective July 1, 1979; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; rescinded August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995. New Rule 140 adopted August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; amended September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective date extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective date extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 540 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002; amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005; amended June 21, 2012, effective in 180 days; amended July 31, 2012, effective November 1, 2012; amended May 2, 2013, effective June 1, 2013; Comment revised December 23, 2013, effective March 1, 2014; amended November 30, 2016, effective April 1, 2017.

Committee Explanatory Reports:

*  *  *  *  *

 Final Report explaining the December 23, 2013 Comment revisions concerning sealed arrest warrant information published with the Court's Order at 44 Pa.B. 243 (January 11, 2014).

Final Report explaining the amendments concerning the scheduling of the preliminary hearing published with the Court's Order at 46 Pa.B. 7810 (December 17, 2016).

FINAL REPORT1

Amendments to Pa.R.Crim.P. 540

Scheduling of Preliminary Hearings for Incarcerated Defendants

 On November 30, 2016, effective April 1, 2017, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court amended Rule 540 (Preliminary Arraignment) to (1) clarify the definition of an in-custody defendant for purposes of scheduling the preliminary hearing, and (2) state that the practice of scheduling the preliminary hearing within the time-period required by the rule but then automatically continuing the preliminary hearing is inconsistent with the intent of the rule.

 The Committee had been presented with a question regarding the interpretation of the Rule 540(G)(1) requirement for scheduling the preliminary hearing no later than 14 days after the preliminary arraignment if the defendant is in custody and no later than 21 days if the defendant was not in custody.2 The question was whether the defendant had to be in custody for the current case or for any matter, even one unrelated to the current case, for the shorter time-period to be applicable.

 The preliminary arraignment rule has had a provision requiring the scheduling of the preliminary hearing since it was first adopted as Rule 119 in 1964. Originally, the time limitation was simply ''within 3 to 10 days after the arraignment'' without reference to custody. This provision was changed in 2012 as part of the package that reinstated indicting grand juries, increasing the time limitations to the current 14 and 21 days. The Final Report to those amendments, 42 Pa.B. 4140 (July 7, 2012), contained the following explanation:

Rule 540(F)3
includes, as an exception to when an issuing authority would set the date for the preliminary hearing, the situation when the attorney for the Commonwealth is presenting the case to an indicting grand jury. Paragraph (F)(3) has been amended to extend the time for conducting the preliminary hearing from 3 to 10 days after the preliminary arraignment to 14 to 21 days after the preliminary arraignment to accommodate the timing for proceeding to an indicting grand jury depending on whether or not the defendant is in custody.

 During the development of these 2012 changes, the Committee also noted that the 3/10 day time limitation was more honored in the breach in most jurisdictions and felt that the extended time limitations would be helpful in all cases, not just those which were being considered for presentation to an indicting grand jury.

 In reviewing the history of Rule 540 for this latest question, the Committee concluded that the intention of the scheduling provision was to ensure that the defendant received a timely preliminary hearing. The distinction made for a defendant who was in custody was designed to ensure that a defendant did not languish unduly in jail before a prima facie determination could be made. In other words, the rule is premised on the idea that the defendant should receive a timely preliminary hearing on the possibility that, if no prima facie case would be found, the defendant would be given his or her liberty. If the reason that a defendant is incarcerated is unrelated to the charges that would be reviewed at the preliminary hearing, presumably due to charges or a conviction in another case, the defendant will remain incarcerated even if the charges in the current case are dismissed. Therefore, the Committee determined that the rule was intended to apply only to incarceration on the current pending charges. Additional language has been added to paragraph (G) to make this clarification.

 The Committee also noted that there was an omission when the time limitation language was changed in 2012. Paragraph (G)(1)(b) states that the preliminary hearing will be scheduled in the listed time periods unless ''(b) the issuing authority fixes an earlier date upon request of the defendant or defense counsel with the consent of the complainant and the attorney for the Commonwealth.'' Since the 2012 changes altered the language of the paragraph to read ''fix a day and hour for a preliminary hearing which shall not be later than 14 days after the preliminary arraignment if the defendant is in custody and no later than 21 days if not in custody'' there is no ''earlier date'' unlike in the ''3 to 10 days'' in the former rule. Therefore this language is no longer necessary and has been removed.

 During the examination of this question, it was noted that the practice in a few jurisdictions is to schedule the preliminary hearing within the time-period required by the rule but with no intention for the hearing to be held on that date. Instead, the court automatically continues the preliminary hearing to a later date. This practice is inconsistent with the intent of the rule and language has been added to the Comment stating so.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 16-2185. Filed for public inspection December 16, 2016, 9:00 a.m.]

_______

1  The Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.

2  The practice in Philadelphia is different from the rest of the Commonwealth due to the different procedures in the Philadelphia Municipal Court. Preliminary arraignment procedures, including the provisions for the scheduling of the preliminary hearing, which are generally held only in felony cases, are governed by Rule 1003. Rule 1003(D)(3)(d)(iii) provides that the preliminary hearing ''shall not be less than 14 nor more than 21 days after the preliminary arraignment. . .'' without making a distinction between defendants who are in custody and those who are not.

3  Rule 540 was amended again later in 2012 and then-paragraph (F) was re-lettered to paragraph (G).



No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.