Com. v. Williams
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Writing for the Court | LIPEZ; The Court below, Smith |
Citation | 284 Pa.Super. 125,425 A.2d 451 |
Decision Date | 23 January 1981 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Rodney WILLIAMS. |
Page 451
v.
Rodney WILLIAMS.
Filed Jan. 23, 1981.
Page 452
[284 Pa.Super. 126] Nancy Wasser, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellant.
[284 Pa.Super. 127] Mary Willmann, Asst. Public Defender, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before HESTER, WICKERSHAM and LIPEZ, JJ.
LIPEZ, Judge:
Appellee was found guilty, after a non-jury trial, of simple assault 1 and robbery. 2 The trial court granted appellee's motion in arrest of judgment on the grounds that his constitutional right to a "speedy trial," as delineated by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100, 3 was violated. The Commonwealth appeals, and we reverse.
The armed robbery with which appellee was charged was committed on August 31, 1976. Following is a chronology, taken from the record, of the events relevant to this appeal:
1 September 1976 Appellee was arrested in Washington, D.C. on charges unrelated to the instant case. 14 September 1976 Detective Robert Groat, of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, informed the Philadelphia police, by telephone, that, on the basis of the evidence seized when appellee was arrested, he (Groat) suspected appellee's involvement with the Philadelphia robbery of 31 August. 13 October 1976 Appellee told Detective Groat that he had committed the Philadelphia robbery. The Philadelphia police informed the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office that appellee was in custody in Washington. Richard di Benedetto, in charge of the district attorney's Extradition Unit, telephoned Detective Groat and was told that appellee's trial (on charges arising from crimes committed in Washington) had not yet been scheduled. Detective Groat promised to advise Mr. di Benedetto as soon as the date was set. 14 October 1976 A criminal complaint was filed against appellee in Philadelphia, charging him with the above-mentioned robbery. 13 December 1976 Extradition Unit staff members telephoned the 28 December 1976 office of the United States Attorney for the District and of Columbia and were advised that no date had yet 21 April 1977 been set for appellee's trial. 4 May 1977 Assistant U.S. Attorney Edward McGuire advised the District Attorney's office that: 1) appellee had been indicted in Washington on 9 February 1977; 2) since he had not yet been tried, Washington would not allow extradition to Pennsylvania; and 3) extradition would not have been permitted at any time since 1 September 1976 (the date of appellee's arrest in Washington). 9 September 1977 Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Saltzman informed the District Attorney's office that appellee had pled guilty to the Washington charges on 25 August 1977, and that sentencing had been set for 26 September 1977. 28 September 1977 The District Attorney's office was informed that sentencing had been postponed to 5 December 1977 because of the commitment of appellee to the Lorton, Va., Youth Center for a sixty day evaluation period. 5 December 1977 Appellee was sentenced, in Washington, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of eight years. 13 December 1977 The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania formally requested custody of appellee under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers. 4 23 December 1977 The appropriate executive authority in the District of Columbia advised Mr. di Benedetto by letter that the request for custody would be granted. January 1978 Delbert Jackson, Director of the Washington Department of Corrections, advised Mr. di Benedetto by letter that appellee had been transferred to the federal prison in Petersburg, Virginia, on 29 December 1977. Mr. di Benedetto then telephoned the Petersburg prison and confirmed that the Detainer Agreement forms had been forwarded there. Mr. di Benedetto then sent additional necessary forms to the Virginia prison. 31 January 1978 Appellee was returned to Pennsylvania. 23 May 1978 Appellee was tried and found guilty of the charges arising from the crimes of 31 August 1976.
Page 453
[284 Pa.Super. 129] The Court below, Smith, J., denied appellee's pretrial petition, filed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(f), 5 to dismiss the charges, but the trial court, Lord, J., arrested judgment,
Page 454
concluding that the Commonwealth had not diligently attempted to secure appellee's return to...To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Taylor
...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 (1981). But c.f. Commonwealth v. Minoske, 295 Pa.Super. 192, 441 A.2d 414 (1982) (a petition to extend time was not deemed ......
-
Com. v. DeMarco
...and due diligence "must be judged by what was done by the authorities rather than [by] what was not done." Commonwealth v. Williams, 284 Pa.Super. 125, at 132, 425 A.2d 451, at 455 (1981) (emphasis in original, citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 317 Pa.Super. 456, 464 A.2......
-
Com. v. Lyles
...because he is incarcerated in another jurisdiction and awaiting disposition of the charges against him there, Commonwealth v. Williams, 284 Pa.Super. 125, 425 A.2d 451 (1981), or because he is hospitalized, Commonwealth v. Haynes, 245 Pa.Super. 17, 369 A.2d 271 (1976), but to prove unavaila......
-
Com. v. Alexander
...deals in hindsight. This type of abstract ("if-then") thinking was responded to quite aptly by this Court in Commonwealth v. Williams, 284 Pa.Super. 125, 425 A.2d 451 (1981), wherein we dealt with the contention that the Commonwealth did not use reasonable efforts in applying for custody of......
-
Com. v. Taylor
...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 (1981). But c.f. Commonwealth v. Minoske, 295 Pa.Super. 192, 441 A.2d 414 (1982) (a petition to extend time was not deemed ......
-
Com. v. DeMarco
...and due diligence "must be judged by what was done by the authorities rather than [by] what was not done." Commonwealth v. Williams, 284 Pa.Super. 125, at 132, 425 A.2d 451, at 455 (1981) (emphasis in original, citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Williams, 317 Pa.Super. 456, 464 A.2......
-
Com. v. Lyles
...because he is incarcerated in another jurisdiction and awaiting disposition of the charges against him there, Commonwealth v. Williams, 284 Pa.Super. 125, 425 A.2d 451 (1981), or because he is hospitalized, Commonwealth v. Haynes, 245 Pa.Super. 17, 369 A.2d 271 (1976), but to prove unavaila......
-
Com. v. Alexander
...deals in hindsight. This type of abstract ("if-then") thinking was responded to quite aptly by this Court in Commonwealth v. Williams, 284 Pa.Super. 125, 425 A.2d 451 (1981), wherein we dealt with the contention that the Commonwealth did not use reasonable efforts in applying for custody of......