Court Opinion

ID: 9648775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:34:43.295295+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.385867
License: Public Domain

HESTER, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent. Here, appellant does not allege any time is properly excludable under Rule 1100(d), but rather attacks the validity of two orders of the court granting the Commonwealth’s applications for extensions of time to commence trial, Rule 1100(c).1 The first such application was *143timely filed2 on the 180th day and appellant’s answer opposing such motion followed shortly thereafter. At a hearing on the application held November 4, 1977, it was established the defense had requested two continuances, while the Commonwealth had requested one continuance due to the unavailability of witnesses. The court thus found the Commonwealth could not proceed to trial within the time required, despite due diligence, and granted an extension of time to November 15, 1977. Appellant argues and the majority agrees that the Commonwealth did not sustain its burden of proving due diligence, which it must do by a preponderance of the evidence, Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 472 Pa. 553, 372 A.2d 826 (1977), and that the court should not have extended the time. I disagree. It is well-settled that defense requests for continuances may obstruct efforts by the Commonwealth to try an accused and may, therefore, justify an extension under Rule 1100(c),3 Commonwealth v. Garnett, 258 Pa.Super. 115, 392 A.2d 711 (1978); Commonwealth v. Brown, 252 Pa.Super. 365, 381 A.2d 961 (1977); Commonwealth v. Mancuso, 247 Pa.Super. 245, 372 A.2d 444 (1977).
In Commonwealth v. Brightwell, 486 Pa. 401, 406 A.2d 503 (1979), Justice Nix, writing in support of affirmance by an equally divided court, articulated the common sense rule which ought to be applied in this and in similar cases. “We know of no case,” he wrote, “wherein the right to a speedy trial has been violated when the cause for the delay has been properly attributable to the defendant. To the contrary, where the defendant has deliberately caused the delay, he *144has been prevented from taking advantage of his own wrong.” 406 A.2d at page 505.
Similarly, the absence of a Commonwealth witness may provide the basis for an extension order. Commonwealth v. Jenkins, 248 Pa.Super. 300, 375 A.2d 107 (1977); Commonwealth v. Lane, 245 Pa.Super. 146, 369 A.2d 335 (1976). Under these facts, we find no abuse of discretion in the 29 day extension granted to the Commonwealth.
The prosecution’s second request for an extension was filed November 15,1977 and appellant’s answer followed the next day. At the hearing on November 28, 1977,4 it was established that on the day appellant’s trial was listed, November 14, 1977, appellant was in custody on another charge and was “not brought down” by the sheriffs. The court found the Commonwealth had been duly diligent, but through sheriff delay, trial could not commence within the time allotted. I agree. Here the Commonwealth had done all it was required to do in order to bring appellant to trial, yet, through administrative delay it could not have foreseen, the Commonwealth’s attempt to commence trial was frustrated. It is well-settled that the Commonwealth may seek an extension if pretrial delay is caused by actions beyond the control of the court system, the defendant, and the prosecution. Commonwealth v. Metzger, 249 Pa.Super. 107, fn. 4, 375 A.2d 781, fn. 4 (1977). This case is thus akin to those where we found a valid Rule 1100(c) extension order due to judicial or other administrative delay in bringing an accused to trial. Commonwealth v. Cimaszewski, 261 Pa.Super. 39, 395 A.2d 931 (1978); Commonwealth v. Vickers, 260 Pa.Super. 479, 394 A.2d 1027 (1978); Commonwealth v. Alvin, 257 Pa.Super. 290, 390 A.2d 827 (1978); Commonwealth v. Brown, 251 Pa.Super. 179, 380 A.2d 436 (1977); Commonwealth v. Rambo, 250 Pa.Super. 314, 378 A.2d 953 (1977). I *145would rule that the prompt trial mandate of Rule 1100 was satisfied,5 and affirm the judgment of the court below.

. Rule 1100(c) provides:
At any time prior to the expiration of the period for commencement of trial, the attorney for the Commonwealth may apply to the court for an order extending the time for commencement of trial. A copy of such application shall be served upon the defendant through his attorney, if any, and the defendant shall also have the right to be heard thereon. Such application shall be granted only if trial cannot be commenced within the prescribed period despite due diligence by the Commonwealth. Any order granting such application shall specify the date or period within which trial shall be commenced.

. Under Rule 1100(c), supra, an application for an extension of time must be filed “prior to the expiration of the period for commencement of trial.” See, e. g. Commonwealth v. Bass, 260 Pa.Super. 62, 393 A.2d 1012 (1978); Commonwealth v. Delauter, 257 Pa.Super. 510, 390 A.2d 1354 (1978). There is no provision for the granting of an extension application nunc pro tunc. Commonwealth v. Shelton, 469 Pa. 8, 364 A.2d 694 (1976); Commonwealth v. Mancuso, 247 Pa.Super. 266, 372 A.2d 454 (1977).

. Both defense continuances were for periods of less than 30 days and hence none of the delay occasioned thereby is excludable under Rule 1100(d)(2). See, e. g. Commonwealth v. Mitchum, 259 Pa.Super. 161, 393 A.2d 767 (1978); Commonwealth v. Shields, 247 Pa.Super. 74, 371 A.2d 1333 (1977).

. The official transcript of this hearing is not included in the record before us. Appellant has, however, appended a copy thereof to his brief to this Court. The Commonwealth does not dispute the accuracy of the reproduction.

. Neither do I find persuasive appellant’s argument that the Commonwealth’s use of form petitions in the instant case requires reversal. Although we have condemned the use of form Rule 1100(c) petitions which allege due diligence without supporting facts, Commonwealth v. Antonuccio, 257 Pa.Super. 535, 390 A.2d 1366 (1978); Commonwealth v. Ray, 240 Pa.Super. 33, 360 A.2d 925 (1976), we have upheld use of such petitions where they are coupled with a hearing in which the Commonwealth proves due diligence. Commonwealth v. Myers, 259 Pa.Super. 196, 393 A.2d 785 (1978). The present case falls squarely within Myers, supra.