Com. v. Scott

Decision Date21 September 1971
Citation281 A.2d 754,219 Pa.Super. 470
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jessie SCOTT, Appellant.
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

H. Yaskin, Asst. Defender, John W. Packel, Chief, Appeals Div., Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Milton M. Stein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., H. Don, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING and CERCONE, JJ.

JACOBS, Judge.

Appellant was found guilty, on July 13, 1971, of aggravated robbery, aggravated assault and battery, and carrying a concealed deadly weapon; he was later sentenced. Prior to trial, the lower court refused to grant appellant's petition to dismiss the indictments upon which the above charges were founded. Appellant's sole contention in this appeal is that the petition to dismiss should have been granted because the Commonwealth violated the terms of the 'Agreement on Detainers', Act of Sept. 8, 1959, P.L. 829, 19 P.S. §§ 1431--38 (hereinafter referred to as 'Agreement').

The Agreement provides, Inter alia, that a person who is imprisoned in a penal institution of a state which is a party to the agreement may request that a final disposition be made of any indictment against him upon which a detainer has been lodged by another party state. 19 P.S. § 1431, Art. III(a). If such a request is made, the state by which the detainer is lodged must bring the prisoner who requested disposition to trial within 180 days, subject to the provisions that, for good cause, a court having jurisdiction over the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance. Id. If the prisoner is not brought to trial within the 180-day period, the pending indictment must be dismissed, with prejudice, and any detainer based thereon ceases to be of any force. 19 P.S. § 1431, Art. V(c). The running of the 180-day period is tolled whenever and for as long as the prisoner is unable to stand trial. 19 P.S. § 1431, Art. VI(a). Finally, no provision of the Agreement, and no remedy made available by the Agreement, applies to any person who is adjudged to be mentally ill. 19 P.S. § 1431, Art. VI(b).

Appellant was arrested and indicted, in 1963, for charges arising out of the robbery of a loan company located in Philadelphia. At the same time he was indicted for the robbery of a loan company in Delaware County. He pleaded guilty to the Delaware County charge and was committed to a state hospital for psychiatric studies. In 1964, while still undergoing hospitalization and prior to disposition of charges pending against him in Philadelphia, appellant escaped and went to New York. While in New York he was arrested, and in 1966 was found guilty of robbery and received a 3 1/2- to to 7-year prison sentence.

While serving this sentence in a New York State prison, appellant filed a request for a final disposition of the Philadelphia indictments pursuant to the Agreement. 1 Appellant was thereupon returned to Pennsylvania. He was received by Philadelphia prison authorities on December 13, 1968, and his trial was scheduled for December 30, 1968; however, the case was continued until February 1969 because defense counsel was not ready for trial at the time of the first listing.

On January 29, 1969, defense counsel made an application for an independent psychiatric examination of appellant. This application was not granted, but the court directed neuro-psychiatric studies by its own psychiatric division. Pursuant to this order, appellant was examined by two physicians who found the appellant mentally ill. On March 20, 1969, upon receipt of the report, the court found appellant mentally ill and committed him to the State Maximum Security Forensic Diagnostic Hospital at Holmesburg Prison for a period not to exceed 60 days. This commitment was made pursuant to section 408 of the Mental Health and Retardation Act of 1966, Act of Oct. 20, 1966, P.L. 96, 50 P.S. § 4408.

On June 23, 1969, a psychiatric evaluation was submitted to the lower court by the hospital at Holmesburg finding appellant to be in a precarious pre-schizophrenic state, at present requiring medication. It further recommended 'that the patient be given an opportunity to proceed with trial as quickly as possible if he shows the ability to cooperate with counsel in the preparation of his defense.' No action was taken on this report 2 and, except for a defense request for a bill of particulars, filed on July 8, 1969, no further action was taken on the case. On December 30, 1969, the motion to dismiss the indictments was filed contending that appellant was not brought to trial within the 180-day limit established by the Agreement. As previously noted, this petition was denied and dismissed. We affirm.

The 180-day period specified in the Agreement did not run against the Commonwealth when defendant's counsel requested a continuance on December 30, 1968, because of his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • People v. Harlan
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • 20 Enero 1984
    ...to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, we agree with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which ruled in Commonwealth v. Scott, 219 Pa.Super. 470, 281 A.2d 754 (1971), that a delay attributable to mental health proceedings initiated by defendant was for "good cause" and was "reasonable" w......
  • Com. v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 21 Septiembre 1971
  • State v. Brown, 82-438
    • United States
    • New Hampshire Supreme Court
    • 9 Agosto 1984
    ...376, 384, 311 A.2d 437, 442 (1973); People v. Paulus, 115 Mich.App. 183, 188-89, 320 N.W.2d 337, 340 (1982); Commonwealth v. Scott, 219 Pa.Super. 470, 474, 281 A.2d 754, 756 (1971). The defendant argues that although he requested these continuances, the circumstances which necessitated his ......
  • State v. Burrus, s. 1
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • 13 Mayo 1986
    ...A.2d 437 (1973) (where defendant requested a continuance to enable both sides to complete pretrial discovery); Commonwealth v. Scott, 219 Pa.Super. 470, 281 A.2d 754 (1971) (where continuance granted because defense counsel was not ready). The Simakis case is particularly close to the facts......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT