Com. v. Adams

• Citation: 237 Pa.Super. 452,352 A.2d 97
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Daniel Clay ADAMS, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 01 December 1975
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Page 97

352 A.2d 97 237 Pa.Super. 452 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Daniel Clay ADAMS, Appellant. Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Dec. 1, 1975.

Page 98

[237 Pa.Super. 454] Edward F. Browne, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Lancaster, for appellant.

D. Richard Eckman, Dist. Atty., Louise G. Herr, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lancaster, for appellee.

[237 Pa.Super. 453] Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

PRICE, Judge.

On September 16, 1974, appellant was convicted by a jury of escape. ¹ Timely motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were refused by the lower court, and sentence was pronounced. Appellant contends, Inter alia, that his right to a speedy trial was denied in that he had not been brought to trial within 270 days from the date the criminal complaint was filed against him, as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(a)(1). We agree, and therefore reverse the judgment of sentence and discharge the appellant.

The relevant events transpired as follows: The written complaint charging appellant with escape was filed on December 3, 1973. After his arrest, appellant was arraigned on December 10, 1973, and a preliminary hearing occurred on July 8, 1974. The trial itself was held on September 16, 1974, 287 days after the complaint was filed. ² Ten days prior to trial, the appellant, asserting non-compliance with Rule 1100(a)(1), petitioned the lower court to dismiss the charges against him. ³ In denying[237 Pa.Super. 455] the petition, the lower court ruled that the delay in appellant's trial was due, at least in part, to the 'unavailability' of his own counsel, and therefore refused to compute a three month period against the Commonwealth, stating that from March to June of 1974, the appellant's counsel, although fully aware that a complaint had been filed against his client, neglected not only to communicate with his client but also to request that a preliminary hearing be scheduled. ⁴

The right to a speedy trial is one of our 'most basic rights,' Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 226, 86 S.Ct. 1558, 16 L.Ed.2d 672 (1967), and is guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Recently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared that 'in order to more effectively protect the right of criminal defendants to a speedy trial and also to help eliminate the backlog of criminal cases in the courts of...