Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI (08/05/85)

submitted: August 5, 1985.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CHRISTOPHER KAMINSKI, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County, Criminal, at No. 1983-873.

COUNSEL

Edward S. Blanarik, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Ambridge, for appellant.

Sheryl A. Serratta, Assistant District Attorney, Bellefonte, for Com., appellee.

Spaeth, President Judge, and Montemuro and Montgomery, JJ.

Author: Montemuro

[ 349 Pa. Super. Page 82]

This is an appeal from a judgment of sentence entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Centre County after a jury trial at which appellant was found guilty of escape. 18 Pa.C.S. ยง 5121. Following the denial of his post-verdict motions, appellant was sentenced to two and one half to five years imprisonment. This appeal followed.

On April 28, 1983, when the alleged escape occurred, appellant was imprisoned at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview in Centre County. On the same day, a criminal complaint was filed and an arrest warrant was issued. Although a search for appellant commenced the evening of the escape, it proved to be fruitless. It was not until November 20, 1983, that appellant was finally located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at which time he was arrested on the escape charge.*fn1 Appellant was detained in Pittsburgh until December 7, 1983, when he was transported to Centre County and was formally arraigned.

This unexplained delay, appellant argues, necessitated his discharge on the escape charge. He now urges

[ 349 Pa. Super. Page 83]

    this court to reverse his conviction due to the lower court's failure to grant his motion for discharge.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 123(a) provides that:

[w]hen a defendant has been arrested in a court case, with a warrant, outside the judicial district where the warrant of arrest was issued, the defendant shall be taken without unnecessary delay to the proper issuing authority in the judicial district of arrest for the purpose of posting bail, as permitted by law.

It is undisputed that appellant was not taken before the proper authority in Pittsburgh "for the purpose of posting bail." Although he is not clear, appellant seems to argue that not only was Pa.R.Crim.P. 123(a) violated, but so too was Pa.R.Crim.P. 123(d),*fn2 which deals with the procedure to be followed when a defendant fails to post bail. The remedy appellant sought for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.