Com. v. Richbourgh
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
| Writing for the Court | Before WATKINS; PRICE |
| Citation | 246 Pa.Super. 300,369 A.2d 1331 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Lloyd RICHBOURGH. |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1977 |
Page 1331
v.
Lloyd RICHBOURGH.
Decided Feb. 18, 1977.
Page 1332
[246 Pa.Super. 301] Charles W. Johns, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, with him Robert L. Eberhardt, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Robert E. Colville, Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellant.
[246 Pa.Super. 302] B. Rubb, with him John J. Dean, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
PRICE, Judge.
This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from an order of the court below, dated April 19, 1976, granting a petition to dismiss with prejudice various criminal charges against the appellee and discharging him from custody. 1 The court below
Page 1333
predicated its order upon a finding that the appellee's right to a speedy trial as provided by Rule 1100 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure had been violated. For the reasons stated herein, we reverse the order of the lower court, reinstate the indictment against the appellee, and remand the case for trial within one hundred and twenty (120) days.On June 27, 1975, a complaint was filed against the appellee charging him with robbery, 2 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, 3 and assault. 4 Subsequent efforts by the police to locate the appellee proved unsuccessful. On July 1, 1975, however, a police investigator received a telephone call from the appellee, 5 who wished to know [246 Pa.Super. 303] why a warrant had been issued for his arrest. After being informed of the charges against him, the appellee informed the investigator that he would surrender to the police within twenty-four hours. After the appellee failed to appear, the police diligently continued their efforts to locate him. On November 14, 1974, the police learned that the appellee was in custody in South Carolina. The District Attorney's Office of Allegheny County promptly notified the proper authorities in South Carolina that charges were pending against the appellee and that extradition proceedings would commence against him unless waived by him. On November 21, 1975, the District Attorney's Office received written notification by the South Carolina authorities that the appellee had refused to waive extradition. On December 23, 1975, the South Carolina authorities notified the District Attorney's Office that the appellee had decided to waive extradition. 6 On December 29, 1975, the court below ordered the Allegheny County Sheriff to proceed to South Carolina in order to return the appellee to Allegheny County. On December 31, 1975, the appellee was imprisoned in Allegheny County.
On March 9, 1976, the court below granted the Commonwealth an extension of time for commencement of trial until April 17, 1976. On April 15, 1976, the court below conducted a hearing to decide the appellee's petition to dismiss the charges. The lower court concluded this hearing on April 19, 1976, when it granted the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Taylor
...the extension is "automatic". Commonwealth v. Wright, 260 Pa.Super. 341, 394 A.2d 582 (1978); see also Commonwealth v. Richbourgh, 246 Pa.Super. 300, 369 A.2d 1331 (1977); Commonwealth v. Roman, 494 Pa. 440, 431 A.2d 936 (1981); Commonwealth v. Williams, 284 Pa.Super. 125, 425 A.2d 451 (198......
-
Com. v. Brocco
...reasonable time. (citation omitted). The reasonableness of a delay in objecting must be determined on a case-by-case basis." Id. at 298, 369 A.2d at 1331. In this case, the presentment of the investigating grand jury issued on March 14, 1975, and the indictments issued on March 25, 26, and ......
-
Com. v. Stokes
...a showing that the prescribed period was violated at the time of the filing of the petition to dismiss." Commonwealth v. Richbourgh, 246 Pa.Super. 300, 304 n.8, 369 A.2d 1331, 1334 n.8 (1977); See Commonwealth v. Simpson, --- Pa.Super. ---, 409 A.2d 95 (1979). Because appellant's motion to ......
-
Com. v. Alexander
...period of time during which his presence could not be secured despite due diligence by the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Richbourgh, 246 Pa.Super. 300, 369 A.2d 1331 (1977); Commonwealth v. Kovacs, 250 Pa.Super. 66, 378 A.2d 455 (1977). "There is no question, therefore, that the duty impose......
-
Com. v. Taylor
...the extension is "automatic". Commonwealth v. Wright, 260 Pa.Super. 341, 394 A.2d 582 (1978); see also Commonwealth v. Richbourgh, 246 Pa.Super. 300, 369 A.2d 1331 (1977); Commonwealth v. Roman, 494 Pa. 440, 431 A.2d 936 (1981); Commonwealth v. Williams, 284 Pa.Super. 125, 425 A.2d 451 (198......
-
Com. v. Brocco
...reasonable time. (citation omitted). The reasonableness of a delay in objecting must be determined on a case-by-case basis." Id. at 298, 369 A.2d at 1331. In this case, the presentment of the investigating grand jury issued on March 14, 1975, and the indictments issued on March 25, 26, and ......
-
Com. v. Stokes
...a showing that the prescribed period was violated at the time of the filing of the petition to dismiss." Commonwealth v. Richbourgh, 246 Pa.Super. 300, 304 n.8, 369 A.2d 1331, 1334 n.8 (1977); See Commonwealth v. Simpson, --- Pa.Super. ---, 409 A.2d 95 (1979). Because appellant's motion to ......
-
Com. v. Alexander
...period of time during which his presence could not be secured despite due diligence by the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Richbourgh, 246 Pa.Super. 300, 369 A.2d 1331 (1977); Commonwealth v. Kovacs, 250 Pa.Super. 66, 378 A.2d 455 (1977). "There is no question, therefore, that the duty impose......