Commonwealth v. Monroe

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Monroe

417 A.2d 253, 273 Pa. Super. 231, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3393

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 21, 1979

DocketNo. 1146

StatusPublished

This text of 417 A.2d 253 (Commonwealth v. Monroe) 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. Monroe, 417 A.2d 253, 273 Pa. Super. 231, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3393 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in denying his motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(f). The lower court determined that the filing of a Commonwealth petition to extend.prior to the Rule 1100 run date tolled the running of the Rule 1100 period until the court acted on the petition. We held in the case of appellant’s co-defendant that the filing of the petition did not toll the 180-day period. Commonwealth v. Favors, 273 Pa.Super. 109, 416 A.2d 1113 (1979). Accordingly, based upon our decision in Favors, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of appellant’s acquiescence in the Commonwealth’s motion for continuance of trial beyond the Rule 1100 run date.

[233]*233Judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HESTER, J., files a dissenting opinion.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellant contends that the lower court erred in denying his motion to dismiss filed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(f). The lower court determined that the filing of a Commonwealth petition to extend.prior to the Rule 1100 run date tolled the running of the Rule 1100 period until the court acted on the petition. We held in the case of appellant’s co-defendant that the filing of the petition did not toll the 180-day period. Commonwealth v. Favors, 273 Pa.Super. 109, 416 A.2d 1113 (1979). Accordingly, based upon our decision in Favors, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of appellant’s acquiescence in the Commonwealth’s motion for continuance of trial beyond the Rule 1100 run date.

[233]*233Judgment of sentence vacated and case remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

HESTER, J., files a dissenting opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 A.2d 253, 273 Pa. Super. 231, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-monroe-pasuperct-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack