Commonwealth v. Hickson

Sep 22, 1975
Appeal, 584
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Jacobs

Opinion by

Jacobs, J.,

This case presents the issue 1 оf whether appellant must be discharged where his new trial was held in vio *498 lation of the time requirements of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(e) . 2 Because we find that appellant consented to the scheduling of the new trial for a date beyond the ninety-day period, we conclude that appellant may not now object and affirm the decision of the court below.

On December 6, 1973, appellant was fohnd guilty of aggravated robbery by the lower court sitting without a jury. The court subsequently in post-verdict motions awarded appellant a new trial ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍on February 15, 1974. Due to several рostponements and continuances, the new trial was not commenced until June 27,1974, some one hundred thirty-two days after it had been ordered.

Appellant admits that the delаy from March 12 to May 10 was occasioned by applications of his counsel for continuances. However, of the fifty-eight days of delay, appellant argues thаt only those days in excess of thirty are attributable to him under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(d) (2) . 3 If this argument is accepted, it appears that appellant *499 would then be responsible fоr only twenty-eight days of delay. After subtracting these days from the one hundred thirty-two days that elаpsed before the new trial was conducted, it becomes clear that the nеw trial was still in violation of the ninety-day requirement of Pa.R. Crim.P. 1100(e).

The record discloses, however, that on June 4, 1974, counsel for both parties met with the court and agreed to postpone the trial to June 19, 1974. When asked if June 19 would be a satisfactory trial date, defense counsel replied, “Any day is fine with me, Your Honor.” Notes of Testimony on June 4, 1974, at 49. ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍Even if we accept appellant’s argument that he is not responsible for the first thirty days of delay occasioned by himself, we observe that the ninety-day period would have run on June 13, 1974. Because appellant agreed to a trial date on June 19 which was beyond the ninety-day period, he cannot now complain that Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 (e)* was violated.

In Commonwealth v. Green, 232 Pa. Superior Ct. 134, 335 A.2d 493 (1975), we encountered a somewhat similar situation. There, defendant argued on appeal that he was placed in double jeopardy when after conviction of certain charges in the municipal court he was prosecuted further in the court of common рleas on remaining charges arising out of the same criminal episode. Our Court, howеver, held that by acquiescing to the separation of the charges, the defendant waived his right to object that he was subjected to multiple trials. Specifically, it was stated in Green:

“[B]y misleading the hearing judge and the Commonwealth with his silence, and by giving the appearance of consent to the arrangement, the appellee [defendаnt] has waived his right to claim harassment by multiple prosecutions.” Id. at 145, 335 A.2d at 498.

In the present casе, when asked by the court if defense objected to scheduling the trial ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍on June 19, a day thаt was beyond the ninety-day period, defense counsel replied: *500 “Any day is fine with me, Your Honor.” As in Green, appellаnt in this case gave the appearance of approval to the сourt’s scheduling the trial beyond the time limits set forth in Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(e). Accordingly, we hold that appellant mаy not now complain that Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(e) was violated. 4

Judgment affirmed.

Notes

1

. Appellant also argues that the complainant’s tеstimony was so contradictory that it failed to ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍establish his guilt beyond a reasonable dоubt. After a review of the record it becomes evident *498 that the complainant nеver hesitated in positively identifying appellant as the robber. The inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony were for the consideration of the trier of faсt. Absent some abuse of discretion, we will not disturb the trier of fact’s determination of crеdibility. Commonwealth v. Coe, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 594, 323 A.2d 213 (1974).

2

. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(e) in effect at the time a new trial was ordered in this case provided: “A new trial shall сommence within a period of ninety (90) days after the entry of an order by the trial cоurt or an appellate court granting a new trial.”

It is clear that Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(e) is applicable to the facts of this case. See Commonwealth v. Woods, 461 Pa. 255, 336 A.2d 273 (1975).

3

. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(d)(2) provides: “In determining the period for commencement of trial, there shall be excluded ‍‌​​​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​​​​​​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​‍therefrom such periоd of delay at any stage of the proceedings as results from:

(2) any continuancе in excess of thirty (30) days granted at the request of the defendant or his attorney, providеd that only the period beyond the thirtieth (30th) day shall be so excluded.”
4

. This opinion assumes that appellant is correct with his argument that only those days of delay caused by the defendant in excess of thirty are excluded from the total period of delay. See Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(d) (2). We are not deciding today whether that argument is in fact correct.