Court Opinion

ID: 9646580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:03:35.355832+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:05.170254
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. This once again is a classic case which demonstrates the corrosion of the applicability of Rule 1100. Rule 1100 should either be applied by this Court or be abandoned, but to continue its elastic approach does a disservice to the citizens of this Commonwealth and the Constitution which protects them. See Commonwealth v. Terfinko, 504 Pa. 385, 474 A.2d 275 (1984), Zappala, J. dissenting; Commonwealth v. Crowley, 502 Pa. 393, 466 A.2d 1009 (1983), Zappala, J. dissenting; Commonwealth v. Green, 503 Pa. 278, 469 A.2d 552 (1983), Zappala, J. dissenting; Commonwealth v. Manley, 503 Pa. 482, 469 A.2d 1042 (1983), Zappa-*155la, J. dissenting; and Commonwealth v. Guldin, 502 Pa. 66, 463 A.2d 1011 (1983), Zappala, J. dissenting.