Com. v. Smith

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtPRICE; HESTER, J., files a dissenting statement in which VAN der VOORT; HESTER; VAN der VOORT
Citation274 Pa.Super. 229,418 A.2d 380
Decision Date11 January 1980
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Jody SMITH, Appellant.

Page 380

418 A.2d 380
274 Pa.Super. 229
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Jody SMITH, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted April 10, 1978.
Filed Jan. 11, 1980.

Page 381

[274 Pa.Super. 230] Harry E. Knafelc, Asst. Public Defender, Beaver, for appellant.

John Lee Brown, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaver, for Commonwealth, appellee.

PRICE, Judge:

Following a non-jury trial conducted on June 27, 1977, appellant was found guilty of retail theft. 1 Post-verdict motions were denied, and he was sentenced to pay a fine of $1.00 and undergo imprisonment for a period of not less than eleven nor more than twenty-three months. Appellant now makes several allegations of error in the trial court. As we [274 Pa.Super. 231] conclude that appellant must be discharged because of a Rule 1100 violation, we need not address his other contentions. 2

Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(a)(2) provides that:

"Trial in a court case in which a written complaint is filed against the defendant after June 30, 1974 shall commence no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date on which the complaint is filed."

The sequence of events pertinent to ruling on appellant's claim that the Commonwealth exceeded this maximum period is as follows. On October 23, 1976, a complaint was filed charging appellant with retail theft. He was arrested and arraigned before Magistrate Stephen Mihalic that same day. Appellant was apprised of his rights and released on bail. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for November 3, 1976.

When appellant failed to appear for the November 3rd hearing, bond was forfeited and a warrant issued for his arrest. His whereabouts remained unknown until February 19, 1977, when George Anderson of the Center Township Police Department received information that appellant was in an Allegheny County jail. That same day, Magistrate Hugo Iorfido issued a detainer on appellant. Three days later, Magistrate Mihalic scheduled a preliminary hearing for March 7, 1977. A hearing was held at that time, a prima facie case established, and appellant was bound over for court. On June 8, 1977, appellant filed a motion to quash the information on the basis of a Rule 1100 violation. That motion was denied and appellant, as noted, was brought to trial on June 27, 1977.

The initial run date for Rule 1100 purposes was April 21, 1977. Trial was actually commenced on June 27, 1977. No petition for extension was ever filed. Consequently, unless at least 67 days are excludable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • United States v. Sunday, 2:08cr393
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 25 Julio 2018
    ...of the robbery statute set forth elements that must be charged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. See Neal, 418 A.2d at 380 (although the means by which the defendant committed the criminal acts came within "the ambit of the broad definition of Robbery in the Crime......
  • Com. v. Colon
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 29 Julio 1983
    ...did not excuse the Commonwealth from the obligation to take affirmative steps to secure his presence. Cf. Commonwealth v. Smith, 274 Pa.Super. 229, 418 A.2d 380 (1980) (Incarceration is not by itself sufficient to render defendant unavailable for trial for purposes of Rule 1100(d)); Commonw......
  • Commonwealth v. Heath
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 19 Junio 1981
    ...an accused is not deemed unavailable for Rule 1100 purposes merely because he or she is incarcerated elsewhere. Commonwealth v. Smith, 274 Pa.Super. 229, 418 A.2d 380 (1980); Commonwealth v. Bass, 260 Pa.Super. 62, 393 A.2d 1012 (1978); Commonwealth v. Clark, 256 Pa.Super. 456, 390 A.2d 192......
  • Com. v. Heath
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 19 Junio 1981
    ...an accused is not deemed unavailable for Rule 1100 purposes merely because he or she is incarcerated elsewhere. Commonwealth v. Smith, 274 Pa.Super. 229, 418 A.2d 380 (1980); Commonwealth v. Bass, 260 Pa.Super. 62, 393 A.2d 1012 (1978); Commonwealth v. Clark, 256 Pa.Super. 456, 390 A.2d 192......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • United States v. Sunday, 2:08cr393
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 25 Julio 2018
    ...of the robbery statute set forth elements that must be charged and proved beyond a reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. See Neal, 418 A.2d at 380 (although the means by which the defendant committed the criminal acts came within "the ambit of the broad definition of Robbery in the Crime......
  • Com. v. Colon
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 29 Julio 1983
    ...did not excuse the Commonwealth from the obligation to take affirmative steps to secure his presence. Cf. Commonwealth v. Smith, 274 Pa.Super. 229, 418 A.2d 380 (1980) (Incarceration is not by itself sufficient to render defendant unavailable for trial for purposes of Rule 1100(d)); Commonw......
  • Commonwealth v. Heath
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 19 Junio 1981
    ...an accused is not deemed unavailable for Rule 1100 purposes merely because he or she is incarcerated elsewhere. Commonwealth v. Smith, 274 Pa.Super. 229, 418 A.2d 380 (1980); Commonwealth v. Bass, 260 Pa.Super. 62, 393 A.2d 1012 (1978); Commonwealth v. Clark, 256 Pa.Super. 456, 390 A.2d 192......
  • Com. v. Heath
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • 19 Junio 1981
    ...an accused is not deemed unavailable for Rule 1100 purposes merely because he or she is incarcerated elsewhere. Commonwealth v. Smith, 274 Pa.Super. 229, 418 A.2d 380 (1980); Commonwealth v. Bass, 260 Pa.Super. 62, 393 A.2d 1012 (1978); Commonwealth v. Clark, 256 Pa.Super. 456, 390 A.2d 192......
  • 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