504 Pa. 385 - Commonwealth v. Terfinko

How this case has been cited

34 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

NIX, Chief Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2A fair reading of the record requires the conclusion reached by the Superior Court that “the Commonwealth failed to establish that it was entitled to an extension because of judicial delay.” Commonwealth v. Terfinko, 298 Pa.Super. 640, 445 A.2d 202 (1982). (Unpublished Memorandum Opinion). The Commonwealth failed to show that the delay was unavoidable. See Commonwealth v. Romberger, 490 Pa. 258, 416 A.2d 458 (1980); Commonwealth v. Morgan, 484 Pa. 117, 398 A.2d 972 (1979); Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 469 Pa. 214, 364 A.2d 1345 (1976). The record does not contain the requisite certification that the extended period was “the earliest date consistent with the court’s business.” Commonwealth v. Romberger, supra; Commonwealth v. Morgan, supra; Commonwealth v. Mayfield, supra.Moreover, the Commonwealth’s evidence falls far short in establishing its own due diligence.*See Commonwealth v. Roman, 494 Pa. 440, 431 A.2d 936 (1981); Commonwealth v. Polsky, 493 Pa. 402, 426 A.2d 610 (1981); Commonwealth v. Ehredt, 485 Pa. 191, 401 A.2d 358 (1979); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 472 Pa. 553, 372 A.2d 826 (1977).

¶3I am therefore constrained to dissent.

¶4 We note for illustration the thirty-three day unexplained delay between the preparation and the filing of the information, which the majority mentions without comment. See at 387, 388-390.