Commonwealth v. Finfrock

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Finfrock

391 A.2d 621, 257 Pa. Super. 555, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3137

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 12, 1978

Docket280

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 391 A.2d 621 (Commonwealth v. Finfrock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Finfrock, 391 A.2d 621, 257 Pa. Super. 555, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3137 (Pa. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinions

PRICE, Judge:

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the lower court’s order dismissing with prejudice charges against the appellee because of the Commonwealth’s alleged violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(a)(2).¹ We reverse.

On September 18, 1975, a complaint was lodged against appellee charging him with possession with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance,² namely “meteamphetamine.” The case was set for trial on March 15, 1976, 179 days after the filing of the complaint. On that day, appellee’s counsel requested information concerning an eyewitness from the Commonwealth. The court ordered the prosecution to provide the witness’ whereabouts and extended Rule 1100 to March 23, 1976, to allow the Commonwealth to comply. On March 22, appellee filed a motion to quash the indictment for failure to charge a criminal offense because meteamphetamine is not contained in the schedule of prohibited substances. The lower court denied the Common[557]*557wealth’s motion to amend the indictment to identify properly the substance as “methamphetamine” and quashed the indictment without prejudice on March 23, 1976. On that same day, the Commonwealth filed a second complaint charging appellee with possession with intent to deliver and delivery of methamphetamine.

On June 1, 1976, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint for the Commonwealth’s failure to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100. A hearing was held, after which the court below granted the motion. The court reasoned that the 180 day period began to run from the filing of the first complaint.

We find the instant case to be controlled by Commonwealth v. Mumich, 239 Pa.Super. 209, 361 A.2d 359 (1976), wherein we held that Rule 1100 did not begin to run from the filing of the first defective complaint, later dismissed, but rather from the filing of the second complaint. In the instant case, the Commonwealth had from March 23,1976, to September 20, 1976, to bring appellee to trial. The court below therefore improperly dismissed the charges against appellee.

The order of the lower court is reversed and the case is remanded for trial.

HOFFMAN, J., concurs in the result. SPAETH, J., files a concurring opinion. WATKINS, former, President Judge, and VAN der VOORT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PRICE, Judge:

This is an appeal by the Commonwealth from the lower court’s order dismissing with prejudice charges against the appellee because of the Commonwealth’s alleged violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(a)(2).¹ We reverse.

On September 18, 1975, a complaint was lodged against appellee charging him with possession with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance,² namely “meteamphetamine.” The case was set for trial on March 15, 1976, 179 days after the filing of the complaint. On that day, appellee’s counsel requested information concerning an eyewitness from the Commonwealth. The court ordered the prosecution to provide the witness’ whereabouts and extended Rule 1100 to March 23, 1976, to allow the Commonwealth to comply. On March 22, appellee filed a motion to quash the indictment for failure to charge a criminal offense because meteamphetamine is not contained in the schedule of prohibited substances. The lower court denied the Common[557]*557wealth’s motion to amend the indictment to identify properly the substance as “methamphetamine” and quashed the indictment without prejudice on March 23, 1976. On that same day, the Commonwealth filed a second complaint charging appellee with possession with intent to deliver and delivery of methamphetamine.

On June 1, 1976, appellee filed a motion to dismiss the second complaint for the Commonwealth’s failure to comply with Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100. A hearing was held, after which the court below granted the motion. The court reasoned that the 180 day period began to run from the filing of the first complaint.

We find the instant case to be controlled by Commonwealth v. Mumich, 239 Pa.Super. 209, 361 A.2d 359 (1976), wherein we held that Rule 1100 did not begin to run from the filing of the first defective complaint, later dismissed, but rather from the filing of the second complaint. In the instant case, the Commonwealth had from March 23,1976, to September 20, 1976, to bring appellee to trial. The court below therefore improperly dismissed the charges against appellee.

The order of the lower court is reversed and the case is remanded for trial.

HOFFMAN, J., concurs in the result. SPAETH, J., files a concurring opinion. WATKINS, former, President Judge, and VAN der VOORT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 A.2d 621, 257 Pa. Super. 555, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-finfrock-pasuperct-1978.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack