Russell M. Nigro, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Steven H. Goldblatt and Deborah E. Glass, Assistant District Attorneys, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Philadelphia, submitted a brief for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Hoffman and Spaeth, JJ., concur in the result. Watkins, former President Judge, did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 253 Pa. Super. Page 443]
On October 7, 1975, after a jury trial, appellant was convicted of robbery*fn1 and conspiracy.*fn2 Appellant's post-verdict motions were denied by the court below. This appeal followed.
On January 10, 1975, a written complaint was lodged against appellant charging him with various offenses. Under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(a)(2),*fn3 the Commonwealth had 180 days, or until July 9, 1975, to bring appellant to trial. Trial, however, did not begin until October 3, 1975. Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that he was denied his right to a speedy trial under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100. Appellant is precluded from raising this issue on appeal, however, because it was not raised prior to trial. Commonwealth v. Wallace, 475 Pa. 27, 379 A.2d 558 (1977); Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974).
Rule 1100(f) provides that: "At any time before trial, the defendant or his attorney may apply to the court for an order dismissing the charges with prejudice on the ground that this Rule has been violated. A copy of such application shall be served upon the attorney for the Commonwealth, who shall also have the right to be heard thereon. Any order granting such application shall dismiss the charges with prejudice and discharge the defendant." Here, appellant contends that he orally joined two written motions to dismiss filed by his co-defendant. We can find no evidence in the record to support this contention.*fn4
The judgment of sentence is ...