Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph BORRIS, Appellant
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1977-03-31
Citations: 247 Pa. Super. 273
Docket Number: Appeal No. 648
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph BORRIS, Appellant.
Judges: Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 247
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
372 A.2d 458
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Joseph BORRIS, Appellant.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Nov. 11, 1976.
Decided March 31, 1977.
Thomas P. Ruane, Jr., Uniontown, for appellant.
Conrad B. Capuzzi, District Attorney, Uniontown, for appellee.
Before WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ.

Opinion:
HOFFMAN, Judge:
The lower court has certified the instant case to this Court on a controlling question of law, see Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, July 81,1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, art. V, § 501; 17 P.S. § 211.501(b): whether the Commonwealth has failed to bring appellant to trial within the period mandated by Rule 1100, Pa.R.Crim.P., 19 P.S. Appendix. We have resolved that issue today in favor of the appellants in Commonwealth v. Mancuso, 247 Pa.Super. 266, 372 A.2d 454 (filed March 31, 1977); see also Commonwealth v. Richey, 247 Pa.Super. 274, 372 A.2d 459 (filed March 31, 1977). The instant case arises out of the same litigation and involves identical facts. Based on our decision in Mancuso, therefore, we order the charges against appellant be dismissed with prejudice. Rule 1100(f).
VAN der VOORT, J., dissents.