Commonwealth v. Krall

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Krall

378 A.2d 373, 249 Pa. Super. 433, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2360

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 6, 1977

Docket75

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 378 A.2d 373 (Commonwealth v. Krall) 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. Krall, 378 A.2d 373, 249 Pa. Super. 433, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2360 (Pa. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

*435 HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred when it granted the Commonwealth’s petition to extend the period in which to try the appellant pursuant to Rule 1100(c), Pa.R.Crim.P., 19 P.S. Appendix. 1 The only allegation of due diligence in the Commonwealth’s petition was that “. a trial cannot commence within the required period because [t]his case could not be tried during the May, 1975 Session of Court.” Although in its order extending the period the court refers to a hearing on the petition, there are no notes of testimony in the record. In a similar situation, we remanded for completion of the record, for without transcription of the hearing, we could not determine the causes of the delay as required by Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 469 Pa. 214, 364 A.2d 1345 (1976). Commonwealth v. Tome, 248 Pa.Super. 242, 375 A.2d 78 (1977). Thus, we believe that we must remand the instant case to determine what evidence was produced by the Commonwealth at the original Rule 1100(c) hearing.

Case remanded for completion of the record.

WATKINS, President Judge, and PRICE and VAN der VOORT, JJ., dissent.

1

. We do not reach the merits of appellant’s additional five claims because a meritorious Rule 1100 claim entitles him to be discharged. Rule 1100(f).

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

*435 HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred when it granted the Commonwealth’s petition to extend the period in which to try the appellant pursuant to Rule 1100(c), Pa.R.Crim.P., 19 P.S. Appendix. 1 The only allegation of due diligence in the Commonwealth’s petition was that “. a trial cannot commence within the required period because [t]his case could not be tried during the May, 1975 Session of Court.” Although in its order extending the period the court refers to a hearing on the petition, there are no notes of testimony in the record. In a similar situation, we remanded for completion of the record, for without transcription of the hearing, we could not determine the causes of the delay as required by Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 469 Pa. 214, 364 A.2d 1345 (1976). Commonwealth v. Tome, 248 Pa.Super. 242, 375 A.2d 78 (1977). Thus, we believe that we must remand the instant case to determine what evidence was produced by the Commonwealth at the original Rule 1100(c) hearing.

Case remanded for completion of the record.

WATKINS, President Judge, and PRICE and VAN der VOORT, JJ., dissent.

1

. We do not reach the merits of appellant’s additional five claims because a meritorious Rule 1100 claim entitles him to be discharged. Rule 1100(f).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

378 A.2d 373, 249 Pa. Super. 433, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-krall-pasuperct-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack