Court Opinion

ID: 9763727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:53:50.374483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:49.198829
License: Public Domain

POPOVICH, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority today gives judicial sanction to the emasculation of a cherished right protected by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100, i. e., the right to a speedy trial. Hence, I must register my dissent.
Appellant, Daniel E. Daniels, was charged on May 5,1975, with various crimes, arrested, and placed in jail prior to the commencement of trial. Pursuant to Rule 1100, that trial should have occurred before November 2, 1975. Before the scheduled trial date, his attorney filed a Motion for Continuance waiving appellant’s Rule 1100 rights. Appellant was brought to trial eight days after the original run date, on November 10, 1975.
Until that time, appellant was languishing in jail totally unaware of the Motion for Continuance filed on his behalf. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to indicate: (a) that there was prior consultation with appellant by his attorney; (b) that appellant consented to such action; (c) that appellant acquiesced to counsel’s Motion; or (d) that appellant was present at the waiver proceeding.
This writer considers certain rights so personal in nature, e. g., the right to appeal, the right to enter a plea of guilty, the right to a jury trial, and the right to testify on one’s own *77behalf, that a decision to waive these fundamental guarantees is to be exercised by the accused himself; and the role of the attorney is to be limited to giving advice and counsel. See Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 91-94, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2509-2510, 53 L.Ed.2d 594, 610-12 (1977) (Burger, C. J., Concurring Opinion); Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 475 Pa. 256, 263, 380 A.2d 341, 345 (1977) (Roberts, J., Dissenting Opinion, joined by Manderino, J.); ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, The Prosecution Function and Defense Function § 5.2, pp. 237-238 (App. Draft 1971).
The right to a speedy trial, protected by Art. I, § 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, should be accorded no less deference by this Court. Today, the majority undermines that principle in the law. This writer, contrary to the view espoused by my brethren, would require some evidence on-the-record indicating that the attorney and client discussed the nature and consequence of a decision to waive one’s right to a speedy trial. See Commonwealth v. Laudenslager, 259 Pa.Super. 118, 122-26, 393 A.2d 745, 747-749 (1978) (Hoffman, J., Dissenting Opinion, joined in part by Jacobs and Spaeth, JJ.).*

 This writer takes exception to Judge Spaeth’s remark that by the time the Commonwealth v. Tami, 264 Pa.Super. 535, 400 A.2d 214 (1979) decision was rendered, “. .. it seemed to [him] that . .. Laudenslager had become the law.” Commonwealth v. Daniels, 288 Pa.Super. 69, 76, 431 A.2d 291, 294 (1981) (Spaeth Jr., Concurring Opinion). Implicit in Judge Spaeth’s conclusionary statement is the notion that the validity of a ruling is to be assumed from the mere passage of time. Prior to Tami, it is to be noted that Commonwealth v. Walley, 262 Pa.Super. 496, 396 A.2d 1280 (1978) was the only case addressing the validity of counsel’s unilateral waiver of his client’s Rule 1100 rights. Ironically, Walley makes no mention of Laudenslager. Although a rule of law may have emerged from a case, that does not foreclose its subsequent scrutiny by the Courts in ascertaining whether it is still jurisprudentially sound. Since the law is a “living and developing legal system . . . rather than ... a static set of rules,” Estate of Grossman, 486 Pa. 460, 470, 406 A.2d 726, 729 (1979), the policy of stare decisis is not to be adhered to with such blind obedience that one’s constitutional rights, e. g., to a speedy trial, are impinged. The better practice would be to examine the continuing viability of our decisions where the need so requires. The instant case is such a situation. Therefore, because I consider the right to a *78speedy trial so personal in nature that it cannot be waived by an attorney without advance consultation with his client, I cannot join in a decision that erodes such a cherished constitutional right.