 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Commonwealth v. Lehman3/24/2003
2809 (Pa. December 19, 2002) (holding any issue not included in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived).
16 Appellant's second Rule 600 issue concerns the time period after he was denied ARD and when the Commonwealth placed him back on the trial list, from December 7, 2000 through January 9, 2001. Appellant argues his agreement to extend the 365 time period for 90 days after his petition for ARD was resolved, on October 5, 2000, became null and void when the Commonwealth immediately placed his case on the November, 2000 trial list following the denial of his application for ARD. We disagree.
17 The court concluded only 329 days were attributable to the Commonwealth. Findings of Fact, Motion to Dismiss, 2/18/02, at 4. As the trial court summarized,
n June 16, 2000, defendant filed an ARD application wherein he agreed to extend the time within which he could be brought to trial for a period of 90 days after a determination was made on his ARD application. The application was refused on October 5, 2000. The 90 day extension, therefore, would end on January 4, 2001. The case was placed on the November 2000 Trial List. The fact the Commonwealth timely placed the matter back on the trial list should not be held against it. Defendant agreed to the extension and he should be held to his agreement. Trial Court Opinion, Dobson, J., 8/1/02, at 3-4.
Appellant's application for ARD, signed June 16, 2000, specifically stated he agreed to a 90-day waiver subsequent to the possible denial or acceptance of the application. Appellant's brief at 34a. The court's Order of August 10, 2000 continued appellant's case for the purpose of consideration of his application for ARD and included a, "waiver of Rule in this case pending a determination of his eligibility for the ARD program plus ninety days, and if accepted to the program, for the time he is in the program plus ninety days[.]" Record No. 11, Order, 8/10/00. The application was refused October 10, 2000 and appellant was scheduled for trial for the November and December trial terms. The period between October 6, 2000 and January 4, 2001 is excluded due to appellant's express waiver and the trial court's Order effectuating said waiver. Any delay occurring during this 90-day time period, therefore, cannot be attributed to the Commonwealth. Appellant's Rule 600 argument is without merit.
18 Having found each of appellant's arguments devoid of merit, we affirm the February 1, 2002 judgment of sentence.
19 Judgment of sentence affirmed.
20 Musmanno, J., concurs in the result.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|