Commonwealth v. Groarke

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Groarke

409 A.2d 870, 269 Pa. Super. 243, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2827

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 7, 1979

Docket1362

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 409 A.2d 870 (Commonwealth v. Groarke) 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. Groarke, 409 A.2d 870, 269 Pa. Super. 243, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2827 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

CERCONE, President Judge:

Appellant takes this appeal from his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Appellant makes three arguments, all challenging the extension of time for trial granted to the Commonwealth under Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 1100(c). Because of our view of this case, we need only-address ourselves to one of appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below we order that a full hearing be held at which time the Commonwealth is to be given the opportunity to show due diligence.

A criminal complaint was filed against appellant on March 13,1975. Subsequently, on September 9,1975, the Commonwealth petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County for an extension of time. This was the one hundred and eightieth day from the date of the filing of the criminal complaint. A hearing concerning the Commonwealth’s petition was held on September 19, 1975 during which appellant challenged the averments contained in the Commonwealth’s petition. Specifically, appellant took issue with the Commonwealth’s allegation that the reason appellant’s case had not been listed for trial within the one hundred and eighty day period is because of court backlog and unavailability of judges. Unfortunately, neither appellant nor the Commonwealth was able to develop their arguments any further or to put in evidence supporting their respective positions on the record because the hearing was cut short by the presiding judge, who said,

“If every attorney comes in here and denies all these allegations, we are going to have ten full hearings. That [245]*245is the next thing we are going to do. So I am going to deny your motion. Take it up to the Appellate Court. I hope the Appellate Court sustains your position, so far as I am concerned. I’m sick and tired of these cases.”

We have in the past ordered new hearings on Rule 1100 issues where the record before us was so incomplete that we could not meaningfully review the issue. See Commonwealth v. Golson, 263 Pa.Super. 143, 397 A.2d 441 (1979); Commonwealth v. Clark, 256 Pa.Super. 456, 390 A.2d 192 (1978); Commonwealth v. Wareham, 256 Pa.Super. 23, 389 A.2d 581 (1978); Commonwealth v. Gardner, 253 Pa.Super. 233, 384 A.2d 1318 (1978); Commonwealth v. Krall, 249 Pa.Super. 433, 378 A.2d 373 (1977); Commonwealth v. Tome, 248 Pa.Super. 242, 375 A.2d 78 (1977); Commonwealth v. Clark, 248 Pa.Super. 184, 374 A.2d 1380 (1977). In view of the actions of the lower court we conclude that the instant case is also a proper one for a rehearing.

Accordingly, we remand and order that a full hearing be held on the Rule 1100 issue, during which the Commonwealth is to establish its due diligence.

PRICE, J., files a dissenting opinion. JACOBS, 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

CERCONE, President Judge:

Appellant takes this appeal from his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. Appellant makes three arguments, all challenging the extension of time for trial granted to the Commonwealth under Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 1100(c). Because of our view of this case, we need only-address ourselves to one of appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below we order that a full hearing be held at which time the Commonwealth is to be given the opportunity to show due diligence.

A criminal complaint was filed against appellant on March 13,1975. Subsequently, on September 9,1975, the Commonwealth petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County for an extension of time. This was the one hundred and eightieth day from the date of the filing of the criminal complaint. A hearing concerning the Commonwealth’s petition was held on September 19, 1975 during which appellant challenged the averments contained in the Commonwealth’s petition. Specifically, appellant took issue with the Commonwealth’s allegation that the reason appellant’s case had not been listed for trial within the one hundred and eighty day period is because of court backlog and unavailability of judges. Unfortunately, neither appellant nor the Commonwealth was able to develop their arguments any further or to put in evidence supporting their respective positions on the record because the hearing was cut short by the presiding judge, who said,

“If every attorney comes in here and denies all these allegations, we are going to have ten full hearings. That [245]*245is the next thing we are going to do. So I am going to deny your motion. Take it up to the Appellate Court. I hope the Appellate Court sustains your position, so far as I am concerned. I’m sick and tired of these cases.”

We have in the past ordered new hearings on Rule 1100 issues where the record before us was so incomplete that we could not meaningfully review the issue. See Commonwealth v. Golson, 263 Pa.Super. 143, 397 A.2d 441 (1979); Commonwealth v. Clark, 256 Pa.Super. 456, 390 A.2d 192 (1978); Commonwealth v. Wareham, 256 Pa.Super. 23, 389 A.2d 581 (1978); Commonwealth v. Gardner, 253 Pa.Super. 233, 384 A.2d 1318 (1978); Commonwealth v. Krall, 249 Pa.Super. 433, 378 A.2d 373 (1977); Commonwealth v. Tome, 248 Pa.Super. 242, 375 A.2d 78 (1977); Commonwealth v. Clark, 248 Pa.Super. 184, 374 A.2d 1380 (1977). In view of the actions of the lower court we conclude that the instant case is also a proper one for a rehearing.

Accordingly, we remand and order that a full hearing be held on the Rule 1100 issue, during which the Commonwealth is to establish its due diligence.

PRICE, J., files a dissenting opinion. JACOBS, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 A.2d 870, 269 Pa. Super. 243, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-groarke-pasuperct-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack