Court Opinion

ID: 9752422
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:06:34.671053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:30.251171
License: Public Domain

HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm for the reason set forth in my Opinion in Commonwealth v. Chapman, 271 Pa.Super. 473, 414 A.2d 352 (1979). I dissent for the further reason that the majority does not exclude from the time limits of Pa.R.Cr.P. 1100(a)(2), the 180 day rule, the period between May 30, 1978, when appellant appeared for his scheduled trial without counsel, until September 1, 1978 when the public defender entered his appearance for appellant. This flies directly in the face of the holding of our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Bussey, 486 Pa. 221, 404 A.2d 1309 (1979) wherein the court ruled:
“Commonwealth v. Millhouse, 470 Pa. 512, 368 A.2d 1273 (1977), is controlling as to this period. In Commonwealth v. Millhouse, supra, the accused who was not indigent presented himself for a preliminary proceeding without *387counsel and did not waive his right to counsel. For this reason, the proceeding was delayed. We concluded that, under such circumstances the accused was unavailable within the meaning of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(d)(1) and that the period of delay resulting from the unavailability, i. e. until counsel entered an appearance, was to be automatically excluded.
Instantly, Bussey appeared at a preliminary proceeding without counsel, did not waive his right to counsel, and was financially capable to retaining private counsel. The delay in the proceeding was the result of these circumstances and counsel did not enter into the case until January 18, 1974. Hence, Bussey was unavailable for this period, and it must be excluded pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(d)(1).”
In Commonwealth v. Millhouse, 470 Pa. 512, 368 A.2d 1273 (1977), the opinion of this Court at 362 A.2d 398 was reversed in a case wherein the delay resulted from the defendant being unrepresented by counsel. There the Supreme Court held, at 470 Pa. 518, 368 A.2d 1276:
“The Commonwealth argues that the Superior Court erred in failing to exclude that period of delay resulting from the appellee being unrepresented by counsel from the computation under Rule 1100(a)(1) (270 day rule). We agree.”
Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(d)(1) provides:
“(d) In determining the period for commencement of trial, there shall be excluded therefrom such period of delay at any stage of the proceedings as results from:
“(1) the unavailability of the defendant or his attorney;”
The actual “period of delay” at any stage of the proceedings attributable to the “unavailability of the defendant or his attorney” is an automatic exclusion from the time limits of either Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(a)(1)—270 day rule or (a)(3)—180 day rule. See Commonwealth v. Shelton, 469 Pa. 8, 364 A.2d 694 (1976).
*388We are of the opinion that a defendant who has not waived his right to counsel is “unavailable” when that defendant appears for proceedings in connection with his case without defense counsel and such defendant is financially capable of retaining counsel. If the “unavailability” results in an actual delay in the proceedings, that delay is automatically excluded. The record in the instant case reveals that the appellee, while financially able to retain private defense counsel, was unrepresented by counsel from February 6, 1974, the date of the preliminary arraignment, until May 28, 1974, the date that Abraham Needleman, Esquire, entered his appearance on his behalf. The preliminary arraignment, however, was held despite the absence of defense counsel and thus, not actual delay resulted. Although the record is inadequate, it is clear that the first actual delay resulting from appellee’s “unavailability” occurred on March 20, 1974. On that date, the proceedings were delayed until appellee retained counsel.” . . . We are therefore of the opinion that the 69 days from March 20, 1974, until May 28, 1974, the date that defense counsel filed his appearance on behalf of áppellee, is excluded from the computation of the 270 day rule and the order of Superior Court at No. 718 October Term, 1975 is reversed.
It is clear that the Commonwealth could not try appellant until he was represented by counsel or waived his right to counsel. The majority would distinguish Millhouse and Bussey from the within situation on the basis that in those cases the defendants could afford private counsel. In my opinion, that is not the key factor in Bussey and Millhouse. The controlling fact is that counsel had not entered their appearance in behalf of the defendants. The Commonwealth was unable to try the defendants until they were represented by counsel or had waived their right to counsel.
In the situation before us, trial was scheduled for May 30, 1978, 104 days following the issuance of the complaint. The Commonwealth was ready, court and judicial facilities were available, but the appellant appeared, for the first time, *389without counsel. Appellant had been represented by private counsel up to this point. The Commonwealth could not then proceed to try the appellant without counsel. He was then directed by the court to proceed immediately to the public defender’s office to ascertain if he qualified for the services of that office. The record discloses that the public defender did not enter his appearance for appellant until September 1, 1978. The majority concludes from this that: “it may not be said that appellant was unavailable for the entire period.” (At pp. 1342-1343). The record does not support this conclusion. Surely the appellant had a responsibility to exercise diligence in applying for the services of the public defender. Until the public defender entered his appearance on September 1, 1978, the Commonwealth did not have the means to require appellant’s appearance at trial prior to that date in violation of his right to counsel. Another conclusion of the majority that is not supported by the record is the statement: “At most, appellant was unavailable for trial for several days at the end of May_____’ (At p. 1345). Insofar as the Commonwealth was concerned, the appellant was unavailable for trial until the public defender entered his appearance.
I submit that the application of the rule spelled out in Millhouse and Bussey would mandate that the period from May 30, 1978 to September 1, 1980, the date defense counsel entered his appearance, be automatically excluded as delay resulting from the unavailability of counsel.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of a brutal armed robbery wherein $41,000.00 was taken from the victims after they had been threatened and beaten. Appellant received a fair trial. In my opinion, his conviction should not now be set aside and he discharged, not because he is now found to be not guilty of armed robbery but due to an alleged violation of Rule 1100 which he himself created. The dissenting opinion of Judge Wieand in Commonwealth v. Warner, 269 Pa.Super. 1, 409 A.2d 33 (1979) is particularly appropriate here. There he stated, 269 Pa.Super. 8, 409 A.2d 36:
*390“Thus, when all the legalese is stripped away, the one fact that clearly remains is that appellant and his counsel were responsible for the continuance in July and thereby achieved a delay of the trial until September. Now they seek to avoid their agreement and use the very delay which they caused to avoid a trial on the merits. By permitting such a result, we encourage the games which are being played with Rule 1100 in the trial courts. Perhaps even more regrettably, we contribute to the disillusionment of a public which cannot comprehend a criminal justice system which allows a defendant to cause delay and then take advantage of his own delay to obtain a dismissal of serious criminal charges against him.”
Due to the fact that I believe that such a result is undesirable and not required by Rule 1100 I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of sentence.