*1 Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH
Appellee, GREEN, Appellant. L.
Edna Pennsylvania.
Superior Court of 9, 2004.
Argued Sept.
Filed Nov.
sault.2 The trial court Appellant found guilty summary offense of harass- ment.3 The court then ordered a Pre- Sentence Investigation report and sentenc- ing was scheduled.4 ¶ 22, July 2002, 3 On the trial court Appellant sentenced years’ proba- four tion and ordered pay her to a fine in the amount of plus costs. Appellant $250.00 was also ordered to have no contact with Daryl wife, Peters and his Monica Peters. Although the sentence imposed was on 22, July 2002, the order of sentence was Ansari, Bellefonte, Parviz appellant. for (docketed) 31, July filed on 2002. Boob, Nathan L. Asst. Atty., Dist. Belle- ¶4 2, August 2002, Appellant On fonte, Com., appellee. alleging that the ELLIOTT, JOYCE, BEFORE: FORD jury verdict against weight STEVENS, MUSMANNO, evidence, LALLY- and seeking judgment arrest of GREEN, TODD, KLEIN, BENDER, or a new trial. Appellant sought also BOWES, JJ. modification of her sentence. Without ex- planation, in an 13, order dated August JOYCE, BY
OPINION J.: (docketed 15, 2002), August the trial ¶ Appellant, Green, court released Appellant Edna L. appeals probation supervision from judgment and revoked all imposed costs and fines imposed on Appellant. trial court July August on On 2002, the trial court subsequent jury to a entered an order (docketed 2002) trial in on Appellant August which guilty denying was found threats, Appellant’s post-sentence terroristic and a motion. bench trial There- after, 12, 2002, Appellant Septémber Appellant guilty found appealed summary to this offense of Court. The trial court harassment. After review, ordered Appellant careful to file a quash we this concise state- ment of matters complained of on ¶2 The record following reveals the (Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)) complied. and she chronology of events. On December Appellant was involved in an alterca- appeal, single On issue raised neighbors, with her Daryl Appellant Peters and is “whether the trial court erred wife, his Monica Peters. As a result of in denying [Appellant’s] post-sentence mo- incident, Appellant charged jury’s tions when the contrary verdict was 7, 2002, several May jury offenses. On weight of the evidence as no reason- trial was held at jury the conclusion of which able could have [Appellant] found jury Appellant found guilty guilty of terroris- making terroristic threats and tic guilty threats1 and not of simple as- when such verdict should have shocked the 2706(a)(1). § 1. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4.Appellant waived her to be sentenced days. 2701(a)(1). Pa.C.S.A.§ 2. 18 2709(a)(1). 3. 18 Pa.C.S.A. 22, 2002), Appellant’s post- justice?” (July nounced Brief for
trial court’s sense omitted). untimely. (capitalization at 6 sentence motion would be Appellant, background merits of addressing 6 Before Against above *3 claim, we must address the of Appellant’s beginning whether the must determine implicates timeliness of this as it Pa. in ten-day period prescribed the jurisdiction. our v. Yar 720(A)(1) the to the date R.Crim.P. refers (1999) is, 12, 581, Pa. A.2d 587 731 the or the date pronounced was issue may consider the of (appellate courts on the docket. sentence was entered jurisdiction sua sponte). Jurisdiction ten-day the view, beginning of our the Superior upon in the Court the vested to the the sentence was period refers date filing appeal. of a Com date the sentence pronounced and the Miller, 1203, monwealth the was entered on docket. bar, In the at the (Pa.Super.1998). case 720(A)(1) First, specifi- Pa.R.Crim.P. inquiry Appellant’s of our is whether
focus imposition of cally refers to the date of post-sentence which was on Rule Similarly, the comment to 2, 2002, August though even 720(A)(1) to the specifically also refers pronounced sentence was on Appellant’s of of sentence. Neither date 22, July 31, July 2002 but docketed on rule the comment thereto refers the nor below, As we will the timeli explain 2002. date was dock- the on which the sentence Appellant’s post-sentence ness of motion in strong eted. These are indicators of Appellant’s relates timeliness no Rule adopting promulgating tice of Pennsylvania Court intended Supreme the 720(A)(1) Pennsylvania Rule of the the imposition of sentence as the date of of Criminal provides Rules Procedure as time for point computing for the reference “(1) para- in Except provided follows: the filing post-sentence motions and not (D) cases], graph [dealing summary on the was docketed. date which post-sentence motion written shall be filed begin Secondly, had the intent been no later than 10 on ten-day on the date which period added). Herein, Id. (emphasis sentence.” docketed, used it could have 22, on Appellant July was sentenced 2002. entry”5 term date “the Appellant Pursuant had instance, provisions in other tence. For July ten 2002 or until Au- 720(A), the term “date 1, 2002, gust mo- file entry” below: was used shown Although August Ap- tion. dated (2) timely post- If the defendant files pellant’s post-sentence motion was entered notice August Using on docket 2002. on shall be filed: was en- the date on which the sentence (a) entry of the 2002), (July Appel- on the docket tered motion; deciding order appear motion lant’s (b) However, entry timely. within 30 utilizing to be denying operation order motion pro- which entry government unit mails or delivers of an office of the The use of the term "date of copies parties, if such interpreted the order to the order” been to mean law, required by delivery docketing e.g. is not otherwise the order. See Pa.R.A.P. government day unit (stating day or office of the of an order the clerk that the copies public). makes clerk of the court or the such shall be in judge necessarily of law cases which the fails to sentence and not the date the motion; sentence was entered on the docket.6 decide the (c) Although specific issue of whether date of of sentence and memorializing the withdrawal not the date of of the sentence cases which the defendant withdraws ten-day in computing should be utilized the motion. 720(A)(2). Along the same Courts, has not been addressed our lines, the word was used computing ten-day our period, Courts provides that: *4 imposition have often utilized the date of “If the Commonwealth files a motion to point. sentence as reference These 721, modify pursuant to Rule implicit recognition instances constitute defendant’s notice of appeal shall be filed imposition that the date of of the sentence 30 within of the order computation. should be used in the disposing of the Commonwealth’s motion.” ¶ Felmlee, v. 13 Commonwealth 828 Id. (en 1105, (Pa.Super.2003) A.2d 1106-1107 ¶ strong that 10 Another indication banc), began we our discussion utilizing imposi- intent behind the date of issue of the untimeliness of tion point of sentence as- the reference post-sentence that “our noting rather than the date of is Pa. initial review of the record this matter provides R.CrimJP. which appears ... to indicate that Appellant’s post- “[i]f the defendant does not file a post-sentence motion was filed 13 the defendant’s notice of imposition sentence, after the which be shall filed within 30 untimely. (emphasis would make it Id. imposition sentence, except provid- also noted that: “After re- We (A)(4).” in paragraph (emphasis ed Id. ceipt [a]ppellant’s guilty plea [the] added). The Comments to Pa.R.Crim.P. imposed trial court on November 720(A)(3) also reaffirm that no “[i]f 30, until Mon- [a]ppellant 2000. had [The] filed, post-sentence motion is the defen- 11, 2000, in day, December which to file his appeal period dant’s runs from the date post-sentence motion.” Id. at 1107. From imposed.” sentence is above, ten-day it can be seen period computed using was the date of ¶ 720(A)(1) Since Pa.R.Crim.P. imposition of sentence. There was no ref- 720(A)(3) Pa.R.Crim.P. refer to the date of erence to the date on which the sentence imposition sentence but referred to the docketed. date of of an in other aspects 720, Dreves, of Pa.R.Crim.P. this shows that the 14 In imposition reference to the date of of sen- 1122 (Pa.Super.2003), A.2d while address- motions, was not tence Pa.R.Crim.P. we ing post-sentence the issue of ac- Accordingly, inadvertence. we must noted that Dreves’ sentence was 10, cept specific language Dreves apply May on Id. at 1125. 720(A)(1). 30, May Pursuant to that motion on post-sentence filed his beginning ten-day pe- twenty days imposition after the language, Ultimately, at 1126. riod to the date of sentence. Id. refers course, posed. 6. Of the sentence can be entered on the docket the same the sentence is im- imposition of days after to Rule than 10 pursuant
determined interpretation comports May This had Dreves ten language of plain with the 2001 to file his 720(A)(1). on motion filed and that untimely. May clearly standpoint, practical 17 From a
Dreves, supra, yet at 1126. This is anoth- reasonable. interpretation quite above instance on er in which our Court relied to inform defen- required courts are Trial in com- the date of their file dants of ten-day period puting the within which as the time as well motions filed. post-sentence motion must filed. Since which such motions must be there to the date Again, reference this informa- normally provide trial courts was docketed. imposition of immediately after the parties that Hockenberry, informing In Commonwealth v. later must filed no Pa.Super. sentence motion (1997), faced we were situation after the date of *5 appellant untimely post- picture the filed an a much clearer presents where sentence sentence motion which he raised issues other time frame involved. On the the legality the of his sentence. implicating hand, and trial often do know courts issue, our brief discussion the timeliness the over when little or no control have we noted that: Docketing is will be docketed. sentence the of the clerk of modify normally responsibility be
A motion to
sentence must
Thus, it would
days
prothonotary.
or the
filed within ten
courts
create uncer-
very confusing
an
from sen- be
appeal
the
inform
days.
tainty if trial courts were to
defen-
thirty
filed within
tence must be
they
post-sentence
must file
time
dants
Appellant was informed
these
the
than
after
sentencing. motions
later
limitations at
the time of
N.T., 10/31/95,
trial courts
15.
mo-
of the sentence when
at
He filed the
sentence will
nine
not even know when the
modify
tion to
his sentence over
do
This would saddle defen-
be docketed.
months after
determining
task of
Normally,
would dants with the
his
claims
been docketed
waived.
sentence has
be
post-
which a
the
within
ascertain
Notably,
A.2d
Hockenberry, 689
at 288.
filed.
In our
must be
sentence motion
on the
above
focused
date
discussion
interpret Pa.
view,
course
the better
reference to
imposition of sentence without
720(A)(1)
that,
re-
providing
R.Crim.P.
date the
was docketed.
en-
gardless of
date
sentence was
¶ 16
discussion leads
foregoing
docket,
post-sen-
a written
tered on the
that for
purposes
to conclude
us
later
must be filed no
motion
tence
720(A)(1),
date
regardless
date of
days after the
docket,
was entered on
the sentence
tence.
must
filed
post-sentence motion
written
aforementioned
Applying
than 10
after
no later
case, it can be
the instant
interpretation
rea
If for some
imposition of
that since
son,
seen
the sentence was not entered on
22, 2002, Appellant was
July
imposed,
docket
motion
to file
post-
required
to file a
who wishes
a defendant
July
2002.
than 10
later
no later
must
do so no
motion
still
words,
In other
Appellant
August
had until
Thus,
imposed.”
sentence is
1, 2002. See 1
Pa.C.S.A.
1908.7 It is where the defendant
does not file a
noteworthy that August
post-sentence motion,
2002 did not fall
there is no basis to
on a Saturday or a Sunday, and it
permit
was not
appeal
of an
beyond 30
legal
holiday. See
Appellant’s post-
id.
days after
of sentence.
sentence motion
August
was filed on
This interpretation of Rule
2002. Pursuant
to Pa.R.Crim.P.
amply supported by this Court’s recent
it was
fashion irrespec-
decision in Commonwealth v. Bilger, 803
tive of the fact that the sentence
dock-
denied,
(Pa.Super.2002),
July
eted on
(2002)
572 Pa.
should be scheduled convic- time of the case must be remanded for plea guilty of a of or resentencing nob at which the court time will If contendere.” indeed the date inform right speak the defendant of his to tencing synonymous defendant, with and will hear the he should sentence, docketing of the it is to to speak, prior reimposition difficult choose to sentence). imagine how the trial court can schedule sentencing after conviction plea since matter, 26 As a practical very few docketing of a sentence is a ministerial (such exceptions as when the court grants performed act protho- the trial court’s pending bail appeal), begins defendant to notary or the clerk of courts and the trial his or immediately serve her sentence af- court has little or no control when over pronouncement ter of the sentence. docketed. pronouncement of the sentence is not merely informational. It the actual im- ¶ Also, prior it is axiomatic that position penalty. merely If it were to the a defendant informational, there would need to to right entitled allocution. See right afford the defendant allocution Hague, Commonwealth v. as to attempt sway so the court toward (“the (Pa.Super.2003) significance of leniency prior to the pronouncement of the lies in potential sway allocution its Additionally, sentence. defendant prior court toward leniency is led from the courtroom after he or she is Permitting the defendant to begin serving sentenced to a term of incar- speak imposed been ceration, that time is included com- right fails to meet the essence putation of time spent serving the sen- allocution.”). If “imposition of sentence” generally tence. See Pa.C.S.A. “entry means dock the sentence on the It would be unreasonable to believe that et”, right a defendant’s to allocution is days spent incarcerated between the only if not permitted violated he was time the sentence is and the date speak prior docketing of the sen the sentence is entered on the docket Pennsylvania tence. We have found no count towards the defendant’s interpret cases that a defendant’s service the sentence. allocution If “imposition manner. aspects of sentence” Pennsylvania means of the sen Other tence, and since some cases the sen Rules of suggest Criminal Procedure also tence pronounce is docketed after its that the date of of sentence is *8 ment, in quote the above would Hague pronouncement the date of of the sentence. permit 702(B), sentencing deny a court to defen a finding a Under Rule “[a]fter right dant of allocution to prior guilt his the and before the of sen- tence,” pronouncement sentencing of the sentence if the court the judge order the permits the undergo defendant to exercise this a or psychiatric psy- defendant to right chological in the interim If “imposition before the examination. 720(A)(1)) (under docketing sentence. This would be the sentence” Rule were sentence”, interpretation right “docketing absurd to mean the Rule 702(B) Hague, supra. sentencing judge allocution. See also a permit See would to Thomas, undergo psychiatric Commonwealth v. 520 Pa. order a defendant to a (1989) pro- that a (holding psychological or examination trial a court must inform defendant his nouncement of the sentence but before the sentenced, speak to In prior being docketing of the sentence. other impose a summary case can in a words, the sentence is court many since cases pro- immediately at the conclusion on the same it docketed sentence nounced, permit Rule interpretation required this de novo trial sentencing pronounce 462(F). a court to a sentence day, prior and at a later date one then ¶ discussion, foregoing 29 Based on the sentence, docketing of that under Pa.R.Crim.P. we reiterate undergo psychiatric psy- a or defendant to examination. are aware of chological We sentencing court is the date the A employing interpretation. cases Therefore, we pronounces the sentence. 702(B) reading correct of Rule illustrates case, Appel- in the instant conclude judge permits sentencing a to order in an motion was filed lant’s undergo psychiatric the defendant a ap- untimely fashion. examination after conviction psychological more as it was filed peal was also pronouncement but before imposition of sen- than 80 after the psychologi- The psychiatric tence. and/or quash this Accordingly, we must tence. clearly cal examination are meant assist sentencing judge pronouncing ¶ Appeal quashed.
imposing Significantly, Imposing 702 is entitled “Aids in Sen- ¶ KLEIN, Concurring files a
tence.” J. Statement. ¶ cases, summary In under 462(F), trial, a de novo following ELLIOTT, J. files 32 FORD any, “the if shall verdict joined Concurring Dissenting Opinion, open immediately announced in court BOWES, J., BENDER, KLEIN, J. and (em-
upon the conclusion of the trial.” Id. J. commenting on the time phasis must period within which BY STATEMENT CONCURRING imposed, the comments to Pa.R.Crim.P. KLEIN, J.: that rule with the contrasted dis- fully thorough 1 I with the agree cases, summary stating by Judge Joyce and the law cussion of cases, summary “In how-
follows: majority that the time conclusion of the ever, imposed immedi- sentence must be begins filing post-sentence ately of the de novo at the conclusion the sentence judge pronounces trial.” Pa.R.Crim.P. Comment. the sentence court. This the date when added). Thus, the Rules Com- (Emphasis clerk “imposed,” not the date when the equated mittee in the above instance puts it on the docket. open time a sentence is announced in 2 I that this Court recognize also is im- court with time en under two quash bound Further, noted, posed. previously as we Felmlee, opinions, banc of a is ministerial *9 Com (Pa.Super.2003) 1105 and protho- act the trial court’s performed Dreves, 1122 839 monwealth clerk the trial notary or the of courts and that (Pa.Super.2003). I also realize or when a court has little no control over lawyer if miss held that a has twice Court Against is docketed. this back- ten-day filing post- for a deadline es “imposition if of the sentence” is ground, appeal to he she has “docketing of the sen- synonymous with Otherwise, only reme- days. tence,” a 30 imagine it is to how trial within difficult dy post-conviction is a petition alleging a case winning jury always before a cannot missing ineffectiveness counsel for every ruling might note him or give deadline. for grounds many While judges request supplement honor a to
¶ I recognize
Quixote
proba-
that Don
a
motion after
notes of
had a
bly
tilting
better chance
at windmills
testimony
transcribed,
are
is no
there
re-
I
in trying
change
than have
to
this result.
quirement
this be done.
However, for the
stated in my
reasons
concurring opinion
my
in
and
Felmlee
dis-
gets
7 The situation
even
difficult
more
Dreves,
senting opinion in
I still think the
defendant,
if a
coun-
dissatisfied with trial
current
imposing
state of the law
such an
performance,
lawyer
sel’s
a
retains
new
post-
absolute deadline for
sentencing.
newly-re-
after
How can a
ignores
reality
sentence motions
lawyer,
testimony,
tained
without notes of
criminal trial
practice and results
fre-
a
prepare
reasonable
motion
injustice.
quent
Because of
inevitable
days?
might
ten
lawyer
within
even
petitions,
increase
PCRA
it will result in
client,
speaking
have trouble
who
dispositions
slower
claims
these
rather
busy jurisdictions
immediately
will be
quicker
fulfilling
objective
its
dis-
shipped
county
prison
from the
to a state
positions.
jails.
overcrowding
county
to alleviate
¶ 4 I
any significant
wonder if there was
the case in
This was
Felmlee.
input from criminal trial lawyers when Pa.
¶ 8 The rule also creates a
problem
appears
R.Crim.P.
was drafted.
It
judges.
trial
If a post-sentence motion is
speed
motivation of the rule
to
up
timely,
judge
the trial
should consider it
appeals. Occasionally,
prob-
there were
and
vacate
not
lems
for one reason
another a
720(B)(3).
But if it
not time-
judge
delay ruling
trial
on post-
ly,
say
now
judge
that the trial
should
verdict motions for a long period of time.
circumstance,
it.
not consider
cases,
process
In these
appeal
relief,
grant
judge
the trial
act within
must
cases,
delayed
some
a
rare
defen-
he or she
while
with a
dant
meritorious claim remained in
jurisdiction,
still has
Pa.C.S.A.
prison
long
appeal
for a
time until tlie
Therefore,
to consider an
finally
decided
this Court.
he or
must vacate
within
she
the sentence
¶ But sentencing
place
often
rel-
takes
application
consider the
or the
trial,
atively quickly after the
before the
time for
runs. Our
some-
Court
of testimony
*10
Court,
is necessary.
lawyer focusing
proper
just
case
A
on
it is
lieve
for our
(a) Entry
or-
upon
No
docket below.
quash
its
to
often on
own
it
until
appealable
a
shall be
der of court
many
If this is what
appeal
months later.
appropriate
upon the
be
been entered
require,
the rules should
has
the rules
under
in the lower court. Where
docket
changed.
an
is
practice below order
applicable
ten-day peri-
my
It is
view that the
dockets,
in two or more
entered
to
motion
come down
od
file the
did not
purposes
has
entered for
order
been
Sinai,
can
jurisdictional,
from Mount
entered
of
been
appeal when
Commonwealth, and
by the
be waived
first
docket.
appropriate
judge’s gener-
trial
should not override the
301(c):
pro
filing.
a
power
Pa.R.App.P.
al
to allow nunc
tunc
(c)
A
Nonappealable
direction
orders.
Dreves,
I
If11 As noted in
judg-
a
specified
the lower court
“are
rules
provides
procedural
that the
ment,
or other order shall
just
provide
intended
determina-
entered,
unaccompanied by actual
and
proceeding,”
criminal
every
tion of
docket,
does
specified
order
simplicity
“shall be construed to secure
Any
an
order.
appealable
not constitute
administration, and
procedure, fairness in
an
before
such order shall be docketed
unjustifiable
expense
the elimination
appeal
taken.
delay.”
at
cur-
and
1131. As
rently interpreted,
720 falls
903(a):
Pa.R.App.P.
woefully
goal.
short of that
(a)
rule.
as otherwise
Except
General
rule,
the notice
prescribed by this
AND
CONCURRING
DISSENTING
(manner
Rule
appeal required
ELLIOTT,
BY FORD
J.:
OPINION
within 30
shall
taking appeal)
¶ 1
join
majority’s
I
in the
deci-
While
from
after the
of the order
and
quash
this appeal
sion to
taken.
appeal
re-
interpretation
also
of Rule 720’s
its
language
3 The
timely filing
quirements regarding
Rule 1410
previous
identical
motions,
join
post-trial
part
I cannot
mo
post-trial
the optional
which created
opinion
require that an
which would
in
1994. Cases
practice
effective
impo-
be filed
optional
terpreting
language of
of sentence.
I am concerned
sition
required the
motions rules have
post-trial
a
creates
conflict
interpretation
such an
ap
govern
sentence to
Procedure.9
Appellate
with the Rules
Interestingly,
in Commonwealth
peal.
¶ 2
governs
Rule 720
Post-Sentence
Ledoux,
(Pa.Super.2001),
9. "These rules
Court,
Supreme
Superior
Court
in the
are as follows:
Court, including proce-
the Commonwealth
(A)
Challenges to Sentence
appeals to
courts
lower
dure in
such
challenge
(1)
The Commonwealth
procedure for direct review in
and the
courts
modify
by filing a
government
such courts of determinations
pre-
by filing
(emphasis
Pa.R.App.P. 103
units.”
*11
Where
has not
post-
sentence
Rule
under
defendant
filed
motions,
(B)
Commonwealth’s
(2)(a)(ii).
appeal
notice
is due
days
within SO
Id. at 1125 (emphasis
Ledoux
order imposing
Rohrer,
cites
v.
Commonwealth
1411(B)(2)(a)(ii).
tence.
(Pa.Super.1998),
for
same propo-
The
post-sen-
Commonwealth
file
It
sition.
incongruous
seems
tence motions
under Pa.R.Crim.P.
Commonwealth should be
permitted poten-
and such motions must be
tially
more
days
appeal
filed
time to file an
than the
the date that
given
parallel provisions
defendant
1411(B)(1). If the
Commonwealth files
721;
720 and
timely
without
mo-
post-trial
the Com-
being
tions
filed
either party, the defen-
monwealth’s notice of
appeal
due 80 dant has 30
from
imposition of sen-
days after the trial
disposes
court
tence while the Commonwealth has 30
1411(B)(2)(b)(ii).
motion. Pa.R.Crim.P.
days from entry
order.
Here,
the record
reflects
language
of Ledoux
ap-
and Rohrer
judgment
of sentence was
on pears
previous
consistent with
cases under
22,
October
1999. The Commonwealth’s
post-trial
the old
practice
motions
post-sentence motion
Novem-
appeal
started the
clock at
of sen-
9,
ber
1999. The court denied the mo-
tence on the docket citing the Rules 301
23,
tion on March
2000. The Common-
Bartley,
v.
Commonwealth
and/or
wealth’s
appeal
was filed April
(1990);
Pa.Super.
tion of v. entry judgment of sentence on docket. PAES, Appellant. Richard al., Darlington Pennsylvania et G. Ronald Pennsylvania. Superior Court (2d 903:6, at 9-22 ed. Appellate Practice Supp.2003). 22, 2004. Argued June agree I Bil- 16, 2004. Nov. Filed majority, thoroughly as cited ger, a late consequences addresses the pursuant to 720. Howev-
post-trial motion
er, with the actual Bilger never deals sentence. As judgment
date for the reads,
Bilger presumably judgment it day was
sentence was docketed the same Therefore, Bilger on its face or Rohrer or
does not conflict with Ledoux
the Appellate Rules.
¶ Clearly, require- the rationale for the judgment
ment of pre-1994 practice
under the set Dorman,
forth Commonwealth v. (1979):
Pa.Super. certainty clarity,
“It is evident
ease determination among pur- principal
of an order are
poses [Pa.R.App.PJ 108.” I disagree 7 While do not given appellate full notice of
defendant is court,
rights open at time of majority’s interpre-
I still believe that the an un- of Rule relates to
tation Rules
timely appeal is in conflict with the However, since it Appellate Procedure. in this case filed her appellant
is clear that follow- more than on the dock-
ing entry of the sentence
et, join quashal. in the I notes are transcribed. Most times a divides whether or not lawyers with a substantial criminal private motion timely. judge If the practice very busy have to be make hearing, assumes and sets a living. Frequently, they no sooner finish it may later that it months determined trial than they one are to court called is not and therefore what would judge before another in another trial. have been avenue for for the They must allow some in the office to time defendant is lost. briefs, clients, prepare meet with return telephone calls and tend to other office ¶ Particularly judge when the trial business. hearing thirty schedules ¶ If post-sentence going Com- meaningful, object, does not thorough review the monwealth I do be-