Court Opinion

ID: 9754865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:17:03.591444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:00.033293
License: Public Domain

CERCONE, Judge,
concurring:
I reluctantly concur in the result reached by the majority in the instant case because recent decisions of the Supreme Court leave no room for disagreement with the majority’s disposition of this case. When Commonwealth v. Whitaker1 and Commonwealth v. Earp2 are read together they virtually compel the conclusion the majority has reached. Were we writing on a clean slate, however, in my estimation a due process analysis should be applied to situations where the accused seeks to charge the Commonwealth with responsibility for delays in prosecution occurring when no formal charges are pending. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971); Ross v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 233, 349 F.2d 210 (1965). However, I agree with the majority’s disposition of this case because a due process analysis no longer seems open to us.

. 467 Pa. 436, 359 A.2d 174 (1976).

. 476 Pa. 369, 382 A.2d 1215 (1978).