Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence March 16, 1987 in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Division, No. 565 & 567 CD 1986
Allen C. Welch, Harrisburg, for appellant.
Yvonne A. Okonieski, Deputy District Attorney, Harrisburg, for Com., appellee.
Wieand, Tamilia and Cercone, JJ. Wieand, J., concurs in result.
[ 370 Pa. Super. Page 337]
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed after appellant, Charles Cooney, was convicted in two separate
[ 370 Pa. Super. Page 338]
trials of robbery and former convict not to own a firearm.*fn1
Appellant seeks review of the following issues: (1) whether appellant's due process rights which he alleges exist under the Agreement on Detainers Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9101 et seq. (Detainers Act) were violated when he was tried on charges other than those for which he was transferred to Pennsylvania; and (2) whether the trial court erred in determining that Pa.R.Cr.P. No. 1100, 42 Pa.C.S.A. rather than the 120 day rule pursuant to Article IV(c) of the Detainers Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9101 applied to appellant's charges.
Appellant was brought to Pennsylvania from the state of New Jersey under the Detainers Act to face burglary charges lodged against him by the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania police. While in Pennsylvania on those charges, he was charged with two counts of robbery and former convict not to own a firearm by the Lower Paxton Township, Pennsylvania police. Subsequently, the burglary charges under the Detainers Act were dismissed and appellant proceeded to trials by jury on the robbery and firearm charges for which he was convicted. Timely post-trial motions were filed and denied by the court. This appeal followed. For the following reasons, we perceive no merit in the issues raised by appellant and affirm his judgment of sentence.
Appellant claims violation of his due process rights under the Detainers Act as he was tried on charges other than those for which his custody was sought by the Commonwealth. Specifically, appellant asserts that in order to try him on new charges, he should have been returned to New Jersey, the sending state, and his custody again requested for the purpose of prosecuting him on the charges of robbery and convict not to own a firearm. In that way appellant could seek review of his case and possible denial of the request for transfer which he claims is a due process right guaranteed by the Detainers Act. Appellant's issue is
[ 370 Pa. Super. Page 339]
one of first impression in our Commonwealth; our research has failed to disclose any cases on point in this jurisdiction or sister states. However, we have reviewed cases from which we ...