Title: Com. v. Dubuisson
Citation: 303 Pa. Super. 145, 449 A.2d 620
Docket Number: N/A
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: August 6, 1982

303 Pa. Superior Ct. 145 (1982) 449 A.2d 620 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert A. DUBUISSON, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued March 22, 1982. Filed August 6, 1982. Paul James Esposito, Harrisburg, for appellant. William A. Behe, Deputy District Attorney, Harrisburg, for the Commonwealth, appellee. Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and WATKINS, JJ. *146 WATKINS, Judge: The facts in this appeal from the revocation of probation are most important: On June 23, 1978 and November 10, 1978 the defendant, Robert A. Dubuisson, choked two different women after they failed to submit to his sexual advances. He plead guilty to two counts of aggravated assault on March 29, 1979. Judge Warren Morgan sentenced him to four (4) years probation. About one (1) year later the defendant again choked a woman into unconsciousness for failing to submit to his sexual advances. He was convicted on September 25, 1980 of simple and indecent assault. On March 4, 1981 about five (5) months after conviction on the new charges, the defendant had a probation revocation hearing before Judge Morgan. Due to his conviction on the new charges, the probation was revoked. In his sentence, the sentencing judge expressed great concern about his prior criminal record and his decision to place him on probation so that he sentenced him to the maximum of five to ten (5-10) years imprisonment. At sentencing, the court explained its sentence as follows: The complaint concerning the sentence is without merit in view of Judge Morgan's colloquy. The complaint concerning time credited is without merit. See Gaito v. Penna. Board of Probation and Parole, 488 Pa. 397, 412 A.2d 568 (1980) where it was held that: Bail was set at $25,000 and the defendant failed to satisfy it. His sentence was computed from June 5, 1980. A tripartite test is used in Pennsylvania to determine the reasonableness of the time period in revocation cases. The elements are the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay and the prejudice to the defendant. Here the length of delay was just over five (5) months. This period has not been found to be unreasonable. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 272 Pa.Superior Ct. 308, 415 A.2d 903 (1979). *148 In this case no reasons for the delay were put on the record due to the fact that no complaint of delay was made at the time of the hearing. See Commonwealth v. Rios, 255 Pa.Superior Ct. 556, 389 A.2d 117 (1978). Furthermore his allegations of prejudice are without merit. Judgment of sentence affirmed.