No. 134 March Term 1978, Appeal from Order of the Superior Court at No. 36 April Term 1976, affirming the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division of Blair County at C.A. No. 353 of 1975.
Ralph T. Forr, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Thomas G. Peoples, Jr., Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Eagen, C. J., and O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Manderino and Larsen, JJ. Larsen, J., dissents.
Appellant, Ted Steven Ehredt, was convicted by a jury of receiving stolen property. After a denial of his motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, judgment of sentence of six to twenty-two months imprisonment was imposed. An appeal was taken to the Superior Court which, by an equally divided court, affirmed the judgment of sentence.*fn1 We granted a petition for allowance of appeal.
Ehredt complains, inter alia, that the trial court erred in granting a Commonwealth application for extension of time in which to begin his trial filed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100 [hereinafter: Rule 1100].
Rule 1100(c), in pertinent part, provides:
"At any time prior to the expiration of the period for commencement of trial, the attorney for the Commonwealth may apply to the court for an order extending the time for commencement of trial. . . . Such application shall be granted only if trial cannot be commenced within the prescribed period despite due diligence by the Commonwealth. Any order granting such application shall specify the date or period within which trial shall be commenced."
Specifically, Ehredt asserts the Commonwealth did not exercise "due diligence" in commencing his trial within the term mandated by the Rule.
On January 9, 1975, a criminal complaint was filed against Ehredt charging him with receiving stolen property. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 1100(a)(2),*fn2 trial should have ...