*1 of time. Court stated that Specifically extension ing an an extension in: “Situations justify will delay” “judicial to commence trial prepared the Commonwealth mandatory period of the but court expiration or the like is difficulties unavailable.” scheduling because also Commonwealth Pa. at 364 A.2d at See Id. 469 In Wilson, 245 addi- tion, supra, elaborated Mayfield, in Shelton, of Rule 1100 set forth interpretation upon result. Although Mayfield- not a different require does “judicial an extension for granting delay” court is the date that the date scheduled consistent certify earliest business, that the record must show with the court’s why of the and the reasons could not delay delay causes avoided, not apply be does instant case. Mayfield this an prescription building couches Mayfield adequate terms, viz. record in “henceforth.” Since prospective May- 8,1976, until the hearing field was not decided October court could not be expected anticipate instant case Thus, requirements. with those prophylactic comply case, within the in the instant terms and criteria of Shelton, petition properly granted an extension. of sentence affirmed.
Judgment
SPAETH, J., concurs result. Pennsylvania, Appellant,
Earl R. ZIEGLER. *2 Guthrie, Jr., M. District Attorney, Assistant Read- Charles Commonwealth, ing, appellant. Jr., Dettra, E. Reading, appellee.
Norman JACOBS, Before HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, SPAETH, JJ.
CERCONE, Judge: from
The instant arises the lower appeal court’s granting demurrer to appellant’s charge rape. demur- granted rer was because the Commonwealth had failed to that venue was obtained in Berks County. On the Commonwealth rests its appeal position almost exclu- on the sively proposition appellant waived this preliminary raise at the We disa- hearing. gree.
Principally, Commonwealth contends that Pa.R. Crim.P., Rule the accused to raise hearing. provides:
“(a) Objections venue shall be raised in the Court of Common Pleas of the judicial district in which the has brought, been before completion of preliminary hearing case or before *3 of completion trial summary summary offense is charged, objections such shall be to have deemed been waived.
(b) objection No to venue shall be allowed unless sub-
stantial will result if the prejudice proceeding is allowed to continue before the issuing authority be- fore it whom has been brought. No
(c) criminal shall be dismissed because of venue.
improper Whenever an to venue is allowed, the Court of Common Pleas shall order the transfer the proceeding of to the issuing authority of of proper magisterial district judicial proper district. the proceeding If to a transferred magis- terial district of another judicial district, the Presi- dent of the Judicial Judge District to which the case is transferred shall be of notified such transfer.” atWhile first blush the Commonwealth’s argument appears we with the lower persuasive, agree court that Rule 25 only speaks question of venue between magisterial districts within same not venue county, between counties.
150 20
First,
of the Rules
appears
Rule 25
of
entitled,
which is
“Issuing
Procedure1
Authorities:
Criminal
Venue, Location, and
of
Rules
Recording
Proceedings.”
21
20,
29,
comprise Chapter
regulate
through
proceedings
do not
authorities and
issuing
procedures
before
Hence,
action
case.
a criminal
becomes
once
to
give
application
seeks
broader
Commonwealth
its drafters. See Commonwealth v.
by
that intended
than
2,
376, 378, n.
Simeone,
(1972).
Pa.Super.
222
we
Second, were
to
adopt
case, we
the instant
would do violence to
reasoning in
always
law which has
treated the question
case
established
counties in criminal cases as one of
of
between
Simeone,
v.
222
Commonwealth
subject-matter jurisdiction.
378-79, 294
at
A.2d
See also Commonwealth
Pa.Super.
2,
Creamer,
168, 171, n.
Pa.Super.
(1975);
236
v.
Tumolo,
189, 192,
223
299
Pa.Super.
A.2d
subject-matter
of
(1973).
question
jurisdiction
15
Since
act,
may
the court
be raised
very power
goes
not be
proceedings,
may
at
time
waived
any
Commonwealth v.
Mangum,
consent or otherwise.
by
162,
(1974);
A.2d 467
Commonwealth ex rel.
Pa.Super.
Cavell,
A.2d
Pa.Super.
cert.
Paylor
(1958);
79 S.Ct.
Order affirmed. *4 J., VOORT, concurring in opinion VAN der files PRICE, J., join. which, comprises rules were num- bered Rules 151-55. (1964) also that either P.S. 2. The Commonwealth contends § entitled,' lines,” county (1964) near P.S. enti- “Offenses § However, tled, during journeys,” applies. “Offenses committed alleged rape facts do not show that occurred within five hundred Judge, concurring: I join Opinion authored by Judge CERCONE with the understanding on that if the my part alleged offense of rape actually occurred in a Berks, other than then the defendant has not been placed jeopardy by this prosecution.
WATKINS, President Judge, PRICE, J., join in this concurring opinion. Pennsylvania MARTIN, Appellant.
James yards county requires, of a line as the former section and the facts during jour- refute the contention that the offense was committed ney. alleged rape appellees home, occurred in mobile at a site certain, journey. rather than