Court Opinion

ID: 9752140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 17:38:47.038226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:08.239841
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Van der Voort, J.:
I concur in the order for reversal, but solely for the reason that the Commonwealth failed to comply with the *37requirements of Rule 1100 in the filing of its Petition for Extension after the expiration of the 180 days set forth in that Rule. I cannot however join the thoughts of the majority regarding the element of judicially charged delays and the application of Rule 1100. My thoughts regarding this subject are fully set forth in my Concurring and Dissenting Opinion in Commonwealth v. Shelton, 239 Pa. Superior Ct. 195, 208, 361 A.2d 873 (1976). Moreover, in view of the Commonwealth’s impermissible delay in seeking an extension in the instant case, I believe it is inappropriate to reach the issue of alleged delay occasioned by operations or misfunctions chargeable to the Court.
Watkins, P.J., and Jacobs, J., join in this concurring and dissenting opinion.