Opinion ID: 2009054
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: withdrawal of initial complaint filing of new charges

Text: The appellant next argues that the complaint filed on August 4, 1980 was improperly dismissed and that a therefore invalid second complaint was filed on May 15, 1982. This argument lacks merit. The appellant's argument is premised upon a misapprehension of the applicable section of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure. [7] In 1980, at the time of the offense, Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 150, 42 Pa.C.S.A., Defects in Complaint, Citation, Summons or Warrant, stated: (b) Substantive Defects: A complaint . . . contains [sic] a substantive defect, the defendant shall be discharged unless he waives the defect. Nothing in this rule shall prevent the filing of a new complaint . . . and the issuance of process in which the defect is corrected in a proper matter. Id., as amended September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974. [8] The appellant alleges that the complaint was withdrawn and refiled to avoid dismissal under Rule 1100. Insofar as we hold that the appellant was unavailable for trial from August 4, 1980 until August 11, 1982 (see pages 635-638 supra ), the appellant's right to a speedy trial was not violated by either complaint. The record demonstrates that the initial complaint contained substantive defects requiring correction. The Commonwealth withdrew that complaint in the midst of protracted extradition proceedings to correct a misspelling of the appellant's name and to drop a charge of conspiracy. [9] Both corrections were in response to problems raised by the U.S. Department of State and were intended to expedite the appellant's extradition. Both corrections were necessary to remedy substantive defects in the original complaint. See Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 150, 42 Pa.C.S.A., Note (as amended September 18, 1973); see also Commonwealth v. Brocklehurst, 266 Pa.Super. 335, 404 A.2d 1317 (1980), aff'd, 491 Pa. 151, 420 A.2d 385 (1980) (incorrect middle name in complaint held substantive defect); Commonwealth v. Navarro, 276 Pa.Super. 153, 419 A.2d 141 (1980), aff'd, 499 Pa. 279, 453 A.2d 308 (1982) (failure to make out prima facie case). Finally, although Rule 150, at that time, contained no procedural requirements, we note that the first complaint was properly dismissed by a competent judicial authority. [10] We find no evidence of any attempt by the Commonwealth to evade the strictures of Rule 1100. Commonwealth v. Mumich, 239 Pa.Super. 209, 361 A.2d 359 91976); Commonwealth v. Brennan, 264 Pa.Super. 206, 399 A.2d 739 (1979). [11]