Court Opinion

ID: 9758537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:35:16.053466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:52.334220
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Judge,
concurring:
By implication, the Commonwealth concedes that it did not bring appellant to trial in a timely fashion. However, it contends that appellant waived his Rule 1100 claim. Rule 1100, Pa.R.Crim.P., 19 P.S. Appendix. I disagree that coun*257sel waived the claim and, therefore, would not reach the issue of counsel’s ineffectiveness.
On October 30, 1974, appellant was charged by criminal complaint with robbery and related offenses. Thus, the 180 day period would expire on April 28, 1975, unless time was excluded by operation of Rule 1100(d). During the proceedings, the appellant requested one continuance which lasted from January 29, until February 24, less than 30 days. No time was thereby excluded from the period. See Rule 1100(d)(2). Delay did result when appellant’s counsel was out of town and, therefore, was unavailable to appear as scheduled, from January 3, until January 29, 1975. See Rule 1100(d)(1). The case was not reached on February 26, 1975, because appellant had been arrested for murder on February 25;1 the case was relisted for March 27. The Commonwealth points to no other periods that are to be excluded under Rule 1100(d).2 Thus, the period was extended by, at most, 57 days. That would have permitted the Commonwealth to bring appellant to trial or to petition the court for an extension of time in which to bring him to trial, any time before June 25, 1975. See Commonwealth v. Shelton, 469 Pa. 8, 364 A.2d 694 (1976); Rule 1100(c). The Commonwealth failed to do either.3
On August 25, the lower court commenced a hearing on appellant’s motion to suppress which had previously been *258reserved to the time of trial. On the next day, during the pre-trial motion, appellant moved to dismiss the charges pursuant to Rule 1100(f). The court continued the hearing to permit appellant to file a written motion which was denied on September 2. On September 4, the court resumed the suppression hearing. On September 18, a jury found appellant guilty of robbery, four counts of aggravated assault, and possession of instruments of crime. This appeal followed denial of post-trial motions and imposition of sentence.
The sole issue before this Court is whether the Commonwealth violated Rule 1100, thereby requiring appellant’s discharge. As noted above, trial did not commence within 180 days and the Commonwealth did not file a timely petition for an extension of the period. Presumably, appellant is entitled to be discharged. Commonwealth v. Shelton, supra.
The Commonwealth argues that appellant waived his challenge to his conviction: appellant did not file his Rule 1100(f) motion until after the suppression hearing, specifically reserved to the time of trial, had commenced. As urged by the Commonwealth in its brief, “. . . [i]n the Comment to Rule 1100, the Supreme Court’s Criminal Procedural Rules Committee has defined ‘commencement of trial,’ inter alia, as that time ‘when the trial judge determines that the parties are present and directs them to proceed . . •. to the hearing of any motions which had been reserved for the time of trial . . .’ Although as [appellant] indicates the comments to the rules are not in and of themselves binding on the Court, they serve as a guide to the bench and bar. The efficacy of the comment to Rule 1100 is supported by the acknowledgment by both trial and appellate counsel that the dismissal petition which was filed after the motions had begun was untimely. For the Court to hold otherwise will simply encourage defendants to drag out pre-trial proceedings in the hope of frustrating prompt trial under Rule 1100 and thereby obtain automatic discharge.”
*259I believe that the Commonwealth’s reliance on the Comment is misplaced. I agree with the Commonwealth that the Comment is persuasive authority in our interpretation of the rule. See Commonwealth v. Bean, 244 Pa.Super. 368, 368 A.2d 765 (1976) (dissenting opinion by HOFFMAN, J.). I would apply the Comment definition of trial to subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2). Thus, for example, if appellant’s motion to suppress had commenced on the 180th day, appellant could not bring about his own release by prolonging the hearing and preventing commencement of “trial” until the 181st day. In my view, that is the evil which the committee intended to prevent in defining commencement of trial as “the hearing of any motions which had been reserved for the time of trial.” The harm feared by the Commonwealth — encouragement of defendants to drag out proceedings — simply does not materialize. Further, the Comment and subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) speak of “commencement of trial.” I do not believe that we should apply the same novel definition of “commencement of trial” to subsection (f) of the rule. Rule 1100(f) provides in part that “[a]t any time before trial, the defendant or his attorney may apply to the court for an order dismissing the charges with prejudice on the ground that this Rule has been violated.” Insofar as “commencement of trial” is given an unusual meaning by the Comment, I would limit that construction and apply it only to subsection (a). Further, appellant raised his Rule 1100 claim during the court’s consideration of pre-trial matters— the logical time to have the motion decided.
I find support for my position in a recent decision by our Supreme Court. In Commonwealth v. Lamonna, 473 Pa. 248, 373 A.2d 1355 (1977), the Commonwealth argued that Lamonna had waived his Rule 1100 claim because the motion to dismiss was not filed before trial. The Court rejected that claim and stated, “. . .we cannot say that trial was underway at the time appellant’s objection was made. Although the case had been called for trial and defendant had been arraigned before he moved to dismiss, the jury had not yet been empaneled, nor had voir dire or any other *260substantial step of trial begun. See Comment, Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100.” 473 Pa. at 255, 373 A.2d at 1358 (footnotes omitted). As explained in a footnote, “Lamonna’s arraignment, of course, took place in a courtroom in the presence of the trial judge. The next step in the proceedings was the random selection from jury lists of a panel of 65 veniremen, accomplished out of the presence of the judge. Sometime during the recess for this purpose and for lunch, certainly no later than the court’s reconvening at 1:30 p.m., the motion to dismiss was filed. . . . ” Id. 473 Pa. at 255 n. 10, 373 A.2d at 1358 n. 10. By comparison, counsel in the instant case moved to dismiss at a point earlier in the procedure than did Lamonna’s attorney. In light of the Supreme Court’s holding, I find that the plurality opinion’s view that the claim was waived is erroneous.
I would hold that appellant filed his Rule 1100(f) motion pre-trial and would, therefore, reach the merits of that claim; Because the Commonwealth failed to bring appellant to trial in a timely manner, I concur in the result that appellant should be discharged.
SPAETH, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

. I do not reach the issue whether all of that delay may be computed as time during which appellant was unavailable under Rule 1100(d)(1). The result is the same whether or not we assume that all of that period is excluded. But see the Comment to the rule: “. . . the defendant should be deemed unavailable for any period of time . during which the defendant was absent under compulsory process requiring his appearance elsewhere in connection with other judicial proceedings.”

. In its post-trial motions, appellant raised his own unavailability during the days of June 9, through June 12, 1975, when he was on trial for murder. See note 1, supra.

. The Commonwealth finally filed a petition to extend on August 13, well beyond the period. The lower court denied the petition. The Commonwealth does not contend that the lower court’s denial was erroneous.