Com. v. Williams

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
Writing for the CourtLIPEZ; The Court below, Smith
Citation284 Pa.Super. 125,425 A.2d 451
Decision Date23 January 1981
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Rodney WILLIAMS.

Page 451

425 A.2d 451
284 Pa.Super. 125
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant,
v.
Rodney WILLIAMS.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 17, 1980.
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
14 practice notes
  • Com. v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 8, 1985
    ...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
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 27, 1984
    ...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
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 12, 1983
    ...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
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • August 26, 1983
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Com. v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • March 8, 1985
    ...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
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 27, 1984
    ...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
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • July 12, 1983
    ...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
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Pennsylvania
    • August 26, 1983
    ...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......
  • 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