Com. v. Revtai
| Decision Date | 15 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 5,s. 5 |
| Citation | 516 Pa. 53,532 A.2d 1 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Andrew REVTAI, Appellee. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Dennis Allen BRIGGS, Appellee. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Alan Keith SEEGER, Appellee. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Cathryn Lee PRESS, Appellee. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Monroe C. HATCHER, Sr., Appellee. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Michael T. McCONVILLE, Appellee. W.D. Appeal 1986, 48 W.D. Appeal 1986, 5 M.D. Appeal 1986, 6 M.D. Appeal 1986, 27 M.D. Appeal 1986 and 1 E.D. Appeal 1987. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert E. Colville, Dist. Atty., Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellant in No. 5 W.D. Appeal Docket 1986 and No. 48 W.D. Appeal Docket 1986.
Ray F. Gricar, Dist. Attorney's Office, Bellefonte, for appellant in No. 5 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986 and No. 6 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986.
Richard A. Lewis, Dist. Atty., David E. Hershey, Asst. Dist. Atty., Katherene E. Holtzinger-Conner, Yvonne A. Okonieski, Deputy Dist. Attys., Harrisburg, for appellant in No. 27 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986.
William H. Platt, Dist. Atty., Allentown, for appellant in No. 1 E.D. Appeal Docket 1987.
Gregory P. Voci, Asst. Dist. Atty., Norristown, for amicus curiae in No. 5 W.D. Appeal Docket 1986.
Joseph S. Mistick, William R. Sittig, Jr., Pittsburgh, for Andrew Revtai in No. 5 W.D. Appeal Docket 1986.
Martin M. Scoratow, Lyn C. Ackerman, Pittsburgh, for Dennis Allen Briggs in No. 48 W.D. Appeal Docket 1986.
Kimberly Hamilton, Edward S. Blanarik, Bellefonte, for Alan Keith Seeger and Cathryn Lee Press in No. 5 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986 and No. 6 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986.
Arthur K. Dils, Francis A. Zulli, Harrisburg, for Monroe C. Hatcher, Sr., in No. 27 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986.
David Smith, Bethlehem, for Michael T. McConville in No. 1 E.D. Appeal Docket 1987.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON, ZAPPALA and PAPADAKOS, JJ.
These cases were consolidated in order to address a common issue, to wit: whether a violation of Rule 130(d) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates immediate dismissal of a criminal complaint without inquiry into the prejudice suffered by the defendant. The germane facts of these cases are set out below.
Appellee, Andrew Revtai, was arrested by an officer of the McKees Rocks Police Department on May 25, 1983, and charged with drunk driving. After a breathalyzer test was administered, which showed a .23% blood-alcohol level, appellee was released without arraignment pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(b). According to Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(d) a criminal complaint was required to be filed within five (5) days of the defendant's release. In this instance the fifth day fell on a holiday, Memorial Day, which that year was Monday, May 30, 1983. As a consequence the courts were closed. On May 31, 1983, a criminal complaint was filed.
On June 21, 1983, a preliminary hearing was held before a district justice. At that time appellant requested that the charges be dismissed on the basis of the Commonwealth's noncompliance with Rule 130(d). Appellee's request was denied and he was held for further court action.
On August 9, 1983, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, charging appellee with driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731. On August 18, 1983, appellee filed a "Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus," alleging a violation of his rights due to the Commonwealth's noncompliance with Rule 130(d). On August 24, 1983, a hearing was held before the Honorable Robert E. Dauer, who ultimately granted the motion.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed Judge Dauer's order. 1 Thereupon the Commonwealth sought allowance of appeal, which was granted.
No. 48 W.D. Appeal Docket 1986
Appellee, Dennis Allen Briggs, was arrested by an officer of the Wilkinsburg Police Department on May 5, 1984, and charged with drunk driving and running a red light. After two breathalyzer tests were administered, which showed readings of .186% and .216% blood-alcohol levels, appellee was released without arraignment pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(b). On May 21, 1984, a criminal complaint was filed.
It appears from the record that a preliminary hearing was scheduled for June 26, 1984, but appellee did not challenge the complaint at that time.
On July 30, 1984, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, charging appellee with driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, and running a red light, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3112(a)(3). On August 24, 1984, appellee filed a motion to quash this information based on the Commonwealth's noncompliance with Rule 130(d). On October 11, 1984, after a hearing, the Honorable Bernard L. McGinley granted the motion to quash.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed Judge McGinley's order. 2 Thereupon the Commonwealth sought allowance of appeal, which was granted.
No. 5 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986
Appellee, Alan Keith Seeger, was arrested by an officer of the Patton Township Police Department on December 21, 1983, and charged with drunk driving and two summary offenses. The officer transported appellee to the township police station. Once there appellee started acting strangely, clutching his head, banging it against the plastic partition in the police car, groaning and screaming. Appellee was unresponsive to questions. The officer transported appellee to Centre Community Hospital where appellee's strange behavior continued. As a result of appellee's condition the officer chose not to process him, allowing him to be released under Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(b).
The police officer was aware of the five (5) day rule provided in Rule 130(d), but believed that legal holidays were excluded. In this case the fifth day, Monday, December 26, 1983, was a legal holiday because Christmas in that year fell on a Sunday. The officer then attempted to file the complaint against appellee on December 27, 1983. He arrived during normal business hours, at 3:00 P.M., only to find the office had closed early due to a severe snow storm which had struck the area. The officer finally filed the complaint on December 30, 1983.
On February 1, 1984, a preliminary hearing was held. At that time appellee requested that the charges be dismissed on the basis of the Commonwealth's noncompliance with Rule 130(d). Appellee's request was denied and he was held for further court action.
On February 14, 1984, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, charging appellee with driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, and two summary offenses. On March 13, 1984, appellee filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion which contained a motion to dismiss alleging a violation of Rule 130. On March 30, 1984, a hearing was held before the Honorable Charles C. Brown, Jr., P.J., who ultimately granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed Judge Brown's order 3. Thereupon the Commonwealth sought allowance of appeal, which was granted.
No. 6 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986
Appellee, Cathryn Lee Press, was arrested by an officer of the State College Bureau of Police Services on October 7, 1983, and charged with drunk driving and a summary stop sign violation. She was released the same day pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(b). On October 20, 1983, a criminal complaint was filed.
On November 16, 1983, a preliminary hearing was held. At that time appellee requested that the charges be dismissed on the basis of the Commonwealth's noncompliance with Rule 130(d). Appellee's request was denied and she was held for further court action.
On December 13, 1983, the Commonwealth filed a criminal information in the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, charging appellee with driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731, and a stop sign violation, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3323. On January 6, 1984, appellee filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion, which contained a motion to dismiss alleging a violation of Rule 130. On January 24, 1984, a hearing was held before the Honorable David E. Grimes, who ultimately granted the motion to dismiss.
On appeal the Superior Court affirmed Judge Grimes' order. 4 Thereupon the Commonwealth sought allowance of appeal, which was granted.
No. 27 M.D. Appeal Docket 1986
Appellee Monroe C. Hatcher, Sr. was arrested by an officer of the Susquehanna Township Police Department on September 8, 1983, and charged with drunk driving. After a breathalyzer test was administered, which showed a .23% blood-alcohol level, appellee was released without arraignment pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 130(b). A criminal complaint was filed within the five day period prescribed by Rule 130(d). However, at appellee's preliminary hearing which took place on October 27, 1983, the arresting officer failed to identify the appellee as the operator of the vehicle, and the charge was dismissed.
Thereafter, on November 4, 1983, appellee was re-arrested and a complaint was filed charging driving under the influence of alcohol or controlled substance, 75 Pa.C.S. § 3731. The preliminary hearing on this complaint was held on December 20, 1983, at which time appellee was held for court.
On March 1, 1984, appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that his re-arrest violated Pa.R.Crim.P. 130. The motion was denied. Appellee was ultimately found guilty in a bench trial. Post-trial motions were denied and appellee was sentenced to ninety days to twelve months incarceration.
On appeal the Superior Court, relying in part on its own precedents established in Commonwealth v. Revtai, 343 Pa.Super. 149, 494 A.2d 399 (1985), and ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Zook
...that time, an accused is entitled to be released from custody until the preliminary hearing has been held.") In Commonwealth v. Revtai, 516 Pa. 53, 532 A.2d 1 (1987), this Court [t]he time limits established in our Rules [of Criminal Procedure] do require strict compliance, and when such co......
-
Com. v. Schaeffer
...the Commonwealth did not properly preserve the exclusionary rule 513 Pa. at 142-43, 518 A.2d at 1199; see also Commonwealth v. Revtai, 516 Pa. 53, ---, 532 A.2d 1, 5 (1987). The existence and scope of a state constitutionally mandated exclusionary rule in Pennsylvania remains an open issue,......
-
Com. v. Berryman
...a composite of their stated purpose. Commonwealth v. Lurie, 524 Pa. 56, 60, 569 A.2d 329, 331 (1990) (quoting Commonwealth v. Revtai, 516 Pa. 53, 63, 532 A.2d 1, 5 (1987)). An interpretation of the language in a section of a statute must remain consistent throughout the statute. See id. Add......
-
Commonwealth v. McClelland
...is accorded one section which does not take into account the related sections of the same statute."), quoting Commonwealth v. Revtai , 516 Pa. 53, 532 A.2d 1, 5 (1987). As the foregoing analysis reveals, the amended rule does not evince an articulated intent to overrule Verbonitz or re-affi......