*1 Mayfield, Appellant. Argued December 1975. Before Watkins, P.J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Voort, Van der Spaeth, and JJ.
Joseph Jr., Malloy, Hamilton, A. with him Perrin C. Hamilton, and Darmopray Malloy, & Martin, propriis Donald J. B. Green and
Jean Gallager, Fleer, sub- Cooper & Waters, personis, curiae. for amici a brief mitted *2 Attorney, Greenleaf, District Assistant Stewart J. Goodman, Attorney, District him Bert M. Assistant Attorney, Nicholas, District First Assistant T. William Moss, Attorney, Com- for District Milton 0. monwealth, appellee. J., 29, by 1976: March Price, court erred
Appellant the lower of time for an extension pursuant Pa.R.Crim.P. commencement petition for a time 1100(c).1 based its The Commonwealth not commenc- upon a claim trial could that; complaint the criminal ed within 180 from date required against appellant, filed 1100(a)(2),2 overcrowded Pa.R.Crim.P. because further contends that court docket. The Commonwealth bringing diligence in requisite due it exercised the should to trial and that responsible held occasioned Shelton, solely by judiciary. In Commonwealth 873, we alia, contention, holding, inter that “Rule refuted this part: 1100(c) provides pertinent 1. Pa.R.Crim.P. commence- “At time may apply to the for the Commonwealth ment extending ... court for an order only shall if trial cannot be commenced Such prescribed period despite the Com- within monwealth.” 1100(a)(2)provides in a court case in that: “[t]rial against complaint after June which a filed the defendant written eighty (180) from no later than one hundred commence complaint which the is filed.” the date on precludes prescribed 1100 ... an extension of the period predicated upon judicial delay.” Therefore, because the trial did not commence within period prescribed by 1100(a)(2), the time we reverse discharge of sentence and Also, judges the record shows that of the court normally grant below the Commonwealth an extension of time for commencement of trial unless the accused can prejudice. Although show some the lower court solely upon the Commonwealth’s in this case belief the Commonwealth had exercised due diligencе, prejudice we feel constrained to remark an accused is not a factor to be considered the court in deciding permitted whether an extension should be 1100(c). under Rule allows the lower grant the Commonwealth an extension of time upon finding the Commonwealth exercised due bringing the case to trial. The rule does not *3 requirement by allowing relax the the court to extend the time if an prejudice accused would not suffer Prejudice simply a result of such extension. is not а factor in the of the rule. judgment
We discharge reverse the of sentence and the Dissenting Jacobs, J.: appeal,
This taken after conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor,1 challеnges propriety the of the lower granting petition court’s order the Commonwealth’s past 180-day extend the time for trial time limit prescribed by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100. would hold that the court below acted within the boundaries of its discretion making its order and would affirm the of sentence.
A complaint against written criminal was filed 1959, 58, 29, (1971). §1037, April P.L. 75 P.S. §1037 Act of 1. 282 29, A charge November 1974.
appellant on on the above 20, February hearing waived and on preliminary was Jury. That appellant was indicted the Grand 1975 day to the Court Commonwealth certified same May ready for trial. On that the case was Administrator 8, would advised that the case was 27, May 6, Realizing that trial June 1975. called for day time limits within the 1975 was last May 16, 1100, Commonwealth on Pa.R.Crim.P. of time for filed a for an extension May appellant filed of trial. commencement On charges prejudice to dismiss A 1100. few of the violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. because thereafter, hearing held the court below on both was application to denied petitions. Appellant’s dismiss was petitiоn for an extension but the Commonwealth’s May A was held on June appellant was 1975 in which convicted. 1100(a)(2) applicable which this a trial to commence within
facts of complaint. filing from the date of the provides: 1100 further
“(c) At may apply to the court for an order extending A for commencement of trial. copy upon the such served any, through attorney, his if and the defendant right have the heard defendant shall also if thereon. shall be Such prescribed trial cannot be within the сommenced *4 period despite the due Commonwealth. Any specify granting order such period or within which trial shall com- date menced.” Pennsylvania interpreting (c)
In
section
Rule
requiring
in
for
have
strict
Courts
been
presented
period
of the time
for trial.
In both Com-
Woods,
(1975)
monwealth v.
extension “shall be if trial cannot be prescribed period despite commenced within the (Emphasis added.) the Commonwealth.” The diligence” that it exercised “due by certifying the with the Court Administrator ready February 20, 1975; by discovеring for trial on early May, the Court Administrator had improperly day beyond listed the case for trial on a 180-day period; by applying to the court for an extension 11 elapsed. before the for trial had Appellant, hand, argues on the othеr the Com- duty monwealth had the “to monitor Ad- Court listing cases, delayed by ministrator’s and insure that not Defendant, are called to trial within one hundred eighty days.” Appellant’s brief at 10. The Commonwealth diligent, appellant, cannot be found when the contеnds diligent. Court Administrator’s office has Although agree general policy require of Rule 1100 is to to commence within a certain time and reason irrelevant, delay unless the is caused counsel, 1100(d), defendant or his see Pa.R.Crim.P. rule is not inflexible and extеnsions granted by showing that trial cannot commence within *5 period “despite diligence by due Commonwealth.” (emphasis added). The same general policy prevail was found to in the Interstate Agreement Detainers, September 8, Act of P.L. 829, §1, 19 P.S. whiсh trial §1431 request shall commence within 180 after a for trial prisoner. has been made In Commonwealth v. Wilson, 451, 454, 331 A.2d (1974), we properly held that “the indictment was complied dismissed where the Commonwealth Agreement Detainers; time limits of the Interstate but court, through where the trial in- administrative advertence, orderly failed to effect an efficient or Wilson, however, the case.” progression is not dispositive present because, there, Commonwealth failed to file a for an extension although Agreement the Interstate on Detainers allows “grant necessary the court or reasonable con- tinuance.” Wilson is instructive in that it indicates it possible diligent the “Commonwealth” to have been though system even the court not. was Cutillo, decision, In another recent supra, our Court dismissed the indictment under Rule bring 1100 where the failure to the defendant to trial required period within an in was due to error system. computer Court Administrator’s The Com- extension, sought in an monwealth that case but its untimely рroperly rejected was and was Cutillo, however, expressed the lower court. In this Court opinion in dicta its to what the district should filing system simplest have done: “the would have alerted attorney] him district to call this case to the [the permissible attention of the when the end of the period approached appropriate and no trial date had been scheduled.” Id. at at (Footnote case, omitted.) present In the the district attorney’s precisely suggested offiсe did what was filing system Cutillo. Its alerted the office that was scheduled for improper date and eleven before the expired brought this matter to the court’s attention. conclusion, agree
In with the court below try attempting required case within the A established. *6 reading 1100(c) common sense of Rule dictates that all necessary grant showing is an to extension is the proceeded diligence to bring the case to trial. The “Commonwealth” is to be equated system.” with the “court Commonweаlth v. Wilson, supra. party The is a Commonwealth system impartial action while the court is the trier thereof. An indictment dismissed 1100, irrespective violation of Rule of whether the system. is caused the Commonwealth or the court Cubillo, Nevertheless, supra. 1100(с) specifically permits granting of an extension when due the Commonwealth has been demonstrated.
Appellant argues further it was error for the grant court below to application Commonwealth’s day 180-day expiration extension аfter the of the period. By simply reading (c) section of Rule 1100 the absurdity argument (c) of this becomes evident. Section provides: “At time attorney for the may apply to the court for an order
extending the time for commencement of trial.” Under provision this a district wait could until the last day period expires hour of the last before the time present his for an If extension.
argument correct, immediately the court would then drop everything, defendant, permit have to him contact be heard on the matter and rule on period expired. before the time Because Rule any specific does not set forth in which the time application, court must rule on the I would hold that ruling such a should be made the court within a reаsonable time after for extension has present filed. In the court case the below held hearing and ruled on the within two weeks it the date when was filed. I would find this reasonable
under the circumstances this case.
During
argument
on the Rule 1100
in the
issue
below,
judge
presiding
over the case com-
judges
county
mented
generally
of that
were
granting extensions
unless the defendant could
prejudice.
show some
Appellant
Printed Record at 24a.
now
improper
that was
for the court below to
require him to show that
the extension
prejudicial
commence trial would be
to him. It is also
evident, however, that the court below based its decision
showing
of due
by the
court,
Commonwealth.
of lower
Printed
Record at 31a. Even if I found that
the lower court
solely
the extension
on the basis of lack of
*7
prejudice,
finding
by
record,
supported
it is
appellate
may
well-established that an
affirm the
lower court
by
on a rationale not advanced
the lower
Korvette’s, Inc.,
court.
v.
Gilbert
457 Pa.
Nonetheless,
I
“prejudicе”
would hold that
by
deciding
considered
the court in
whether an extension
though
should be
even
the court
diligence by
to find due
before
the extension. It must be remembered
by
promulgated
Pennsylvania
that Rule 1100 was
Supreme
“effectively protect
right
Cоurt
speedy
criminal defendants to a
trial ...” Commonwealth
Hamilton,
v.
297, 308,
(1972).
though
protected by
Even
an accused is
our
Procedure,
Commonwealth’s
Rules
Criminal
he is also
by
protected
speedy
still
provision
of the United
Const,
States Constitution. U.S.
amend. VI. The time
long
limits set forth in
they
Rule 1100
as
are valid
do
not conflict with
safeguards
the minimal
forth
set
federal
It
imagine
constitution.
is hard to
that a trial
within 180
prosecution
of the start of
would violate
Yet,
speedy
federal
trial provision.
once extensiоns
are
prompt
the Commonwealth and
trial time
periods
followed,
relied on
an accused are not
possible
becomes
point
to envision a
balancing
where the
test, used to
determine whether
violation of the federal
right
speedy
to a
occurred,
Wingo,
trial has
Barker v.
Watkins, Voort, der dissenting opinion.
Philadelphia Corporation Fresh Food Terminal Appellants, al.,
et Appellants. al., M. Levin & Co. et