Appeal from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Criminal Division, No. CC8400300A.
Edward M. Clark, Assistant District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellant.
Mitchell A. Kaufman, Assistant Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Del Sole, Montemuro and Popovich, JJ.
[ 356 Pa. Super. Page 414]
This is an appeal by appellant, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, from an order denying its petition to extend the time for trial and dismissing the charges and discharging appellee, Daniel Mansberry, entered in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. We vacate and remand.
A criminal complaint was issued against appellee on December 15, 1983. On March 25, 1985, the Commonwealth filed a petition to extend the time for trial pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100. Appellee made an oral motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 1100. The Commonwealth's
[ 356 Pa. Super. Page 415]
petition was denied, and appellee's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted. A petition for reconsideration was denied. This appeal followed.
The sole issue presented upon appeal is whether the time appellee was hospitalized for mental disability was excludable in computing the time for trial pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100.
From December 15, 1983 (date complaint filed) until March 25, 1985 (date petition filed), a period of 466 days expired. Pursuant to Rule 1100, it was the Commonwealth's obligation to prove that the 286 or more days in question was time to be excluded in the computation of 180 days.
The Commonwealth contends that appellee was hospitalized for treatment pursuant to involuntary commitments at Mayview State Hospital, (hereinafter referred to as "Mayview"), and Farview State Hospital, (hereinafter referred to as "Farview"), for a total of 280 days. Appellee's initial involuntary commitment came as a result of a request by defense counsel following appellee's first suicide attempt. In addition, the Commonwealth also contends that appellee was a fugitive for 35 days, a period which is also excludable under Rule 1100. Accordingly, the Commonwealth contends that its petition was timely filed, there being at least 29 days remaining before the expiration of the speedy trial period. We agree.
In Commonwealth v. Genovese, 493 Pa. 65, 69-70, 425 A.2d 367, 369-70 (1981), the Court held:
[ 356 Pa. Super. Page 416]
Rule 1100 "serves two equally important functions: (1) the protection of the accused's speedy trial rights, and (2) the protection of society." Commonwealth v. Brocklehurst, 491 Pa. 151 [153-54], 420 A.2d 385, 387 (1980); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 449 Pa. 297, 297 A.2d 127 (1972). In determining whether an accused's right to a speedy trial has been violated, consideration must be given to society's right to effective prosecution of criminal cases, both to restrain those guilty of crime and to deter those contemplating it. Commonwealth v. Page 416} Johnson, 487 Pa. 197, 409 A.2d 308, n. 4 (1980). The administrative ...