Court Opinion

ID: 9705240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:00:29.494118+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:09.154012
License: Public Domain

ROWLEY, Judge,
concurring:
I reluctantly join in the Court’s decision. This is, however, another prime example of the exaltation of a rule of procedure [Pa.R.Cr.P. 1100] to such a status that it affords an accused far greater benefits than do the underlying Constitutional provisions [U.S. Const., Amend. VI, and Pa. Const., Art. I, § 6] that the procedural rule was designed to implement; all at the expense of innocent victims and to the detriment of the law-abiding citizens of Pennsylvania. However, we, as an intermediate appellate court, have no authority, or right, to amend the Supreme Court’s procedural rules or to overrule the decisions of that Court interpreting and applying its rules. Since those rules and decisions mandate that appellant be discharged because his trial was not commenced for 2572 months after the complaint was' filed, I reluctantly concur in the Court’s order.