*1
Appellant, v. BELL, Appellee. David Pennsylvania. Superior 16, 1975. Dec. Submitted 22, 1976. Nov. Decided *2 Stephen Harris, Attorney, B. First Assistant District Warrington, appellant. for Wasserbly, Defender, S.
Richard Assistant Public Doylestown, appellee. for WATKINS, Judge, JACOBS,
Before President and HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der and VOORT SPAETH, JJ. Judge:
PRICE, appeal presents very yet This another and new narrow question for decision under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100. Where against by delinquen- the action instituted a a cy petition subsequently Di- and certified to of a of for full criminal vision Pleas Common trial, days period when does under allowable of 180 insuring purposes prompt 1100 start for Pa.R.Crim.P. of question trial? lower court this start- answered ing time on the date granted discharged appellee’s petition
and to dismiss and appellee. We reverse. February 7, 1975,
On the delinquency petition was alleging filed in the lower appellee court in- was burglaries volved County. a series Appel- in Bucks requested lee the case be certified to the Criminal proceedings. 31, 1975, Division for adult On March a hearing petition on held appellee’s petition was and granted. was The case was transferred on that date. May 30, 1975, appellee On was indicted. His case was listed for 16, Trial, trial on June however, 1975. was continued because of the lack of available court rooms. July petitioned
On the Commonwealth for an pursuant of time 1100(c) extension Pa.R.Crim.P. hearing petition a August 11, on said was scheduled for August 8, day appellee, claiming 1975. On the 180 period February 7, commenced on hence ex 1975, and pired August 6, 1975, petition pursu on filed a dismiss August 1100(f). ant to 11, 1975, On a after hearing petitions, on both the lower court denied the petition granted ap Commonwealth’s extend and pellee’s petition to dismiss.
We need not decide or not the lower court was whether denying petition ex- for correct the Commonwealth’s tension since in con- we hold that the lower did err court starting sidering petition as the computation period the 180 under Pa.R.Crim. *3 Supreme Pennsylvania has clear- P. 1100. The Court of ly contrary 1(a) by ex- the in indicated to Pa.R.Crim.P. juvenile proceedings cluding the Penn- from the ambit of major sylvania Indeed, a Procedure. Rules of Criminal juvenile pro- specialized purpose the of establishment juveniles full thrust of ceedings protect towas justice. adult places great decision, lower court
As the basis for its a 559 Geiger Appeal, 309 A.2d upon 454 Pa. reliance important Geiger is decision the (1973). that We however, inter- problem; as we to the of the resolution supports to reverse. our decision pret Geiger, in fact it supra Geiger, at in Supreme Pennsylvania Court clearly A,2d 1(a), quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 562 56, 309 at recognizes that: rules these provided, specifically otherwise
“Unless nor proceedings juvenile domestic apply or not to shall County.” Philadelphia summary in cases page 563: at page A.2d 57, 309 at continues The court apply un- Rules the Criminal it that clear think “We Court the Juvenile powers of the point at which til the Law.” Court play the under Juvenile come into
167 Although presented appeal the in this is a situation impression is 'matter of first in and this Commonwealth Geiger the situation, of the that the reverse we believe Pennsyl- Geiger holding of supports rationale a that apply until the vania Rules of Criminal Procedure do point powers come at which the of Court the Criminal play. impetus And, holding into given added when juvenile it is requests Court the Juvenile that certify in Court, appellee action to did as the case before us.
It is true the comment to Pa.R.Crim.P.
states: purpose
“For the is intended only, this Rule it ‘complaint’ special also includes used documents complaint lieu of a proceedings to initiate criminal extraordinary circumstances.”
However, any we hold that a juvenile subsequent proceeding are not such “extraordi- nary contemplated circumstances” as justify equating as peti- of the tion February filed on 7, 1975, with the complaint, where, here, proceedings as are certified to criminal court for trial.
The 180 period under com- mences at that when the within the case comes powers of Court, the Criminal and hence within the am- bit of the Rules Criminal Procedure. The Order *4 Transfer then starts the commencement of the 180 period. time recognize holding We also does clearly complaint” not challenge meet the written “a as However, in 1100(a). stated it does excluding clearly Supreme meet intent the Court in juvenile proceedings operation of the Rules of Proceedings, to on insures defend- balance right speedy ants the to a trial.
Since the certifying entered Order this case was on 31, obligated 1975, March to the Commonwealth was 1975, appellee’s prior September commence to trial by August 6, 1975, and not the lower court. concluded as therefore court and reverse the order the lower We the remand case trial. Judge,
WATKINS, in President concurs the result. opinion. CERCONE, J., dissenting files a dissenting: CERCONE, Judge, majority purposes the concludes that for Rule 180-day period the case cer- to run when a is starts peti- delinquency to adult court tified rather than when a 1100(a)(2) filed tion is in states: Juvenile Court. Rule against complaint “Trial in a case which a is court in filed lat- the defendant commence no June shall after eighty days er (180) than one hundred the on from date majori- complaint which the is the filed.” To rationalize ty opinion require to court would that certification adult equated complaint. the be of a written Nei- with willing I, itself, majority ther nor to such the to admit interpretation a strained in to its result. order reach negate Moreover, interpretation an would also such the follow- intent of our in as manifested ing purpose of this rule comment Rule 1100: “For the special ‘complaint’ only, it is also include intended that complaint criminal in documents used lieu of a initiate it if proceedings extraordinary Even circumstances.” petitions not are is conceded that “special complaint to initiate documents in lieu of a used circumstances,” proceedings extraordinary rule, never- with the comment when read in context “complaint” was clearly the word theless indicates that proceedings designate when criminal used initi- case, proceedings were are In the instant initiated. delinquency petition in Juvenile by filing of the ated court. case to adult Court, certification of majority the intent generally While I with the
169 juvenile proceed Court was to exclude ings operation from the proce of the rules of criminal dure, I application cannot that such an under the case, limiting facts Rule insures the accused right of his speedy to a trial. The exclusion was protect juveniles intended thrust full of adult proceedings, juveniles deny rather than to speedy benefit request of a trial. The for certification merely justify should an extension of time for the Com 1100(c), Accordingly, monwealth under Rule if needed. my view, since the Commonwealth did raise question petition extension, of certification in its for an computing 180-day pe the lower court correct in was riod from the date of the granting appellee’s motion dismiss. A.2d Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH of v.
Achelohiym Appellant. WALTON, Superior Pennsylvania. Court of
Submitted March 1976.
Decided 1976. Nov.