THE COURTS
Title 234—RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
[ 234 PA. CODE CHS. 5 AND 10 ]
In Re: Amendment of Rules 515, 541, 543, 561, 589 and 1010, and Approval of the Revision of the Comment to Rule 1002; Criminal Procedural Rules; No. 385
[40 Pa.B. 1068]
[Saturday, February 27, 2010]
Order Per Curiam:
And Now, this 12th day of February, 2010, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 38 Pa.B. 865 (February 16, 2008), and in the Atlantic Reporter (Second Series Advance Sheets, Vol. 939), and a Final Report to be published with this Order:
It Is Ordered pursuant to Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania that:
(1) Rules of Criminal Procedure 515, 541, 543, 561, 589 and 1010 are amended; and
(2) the revision of the Comment to Rule of Criminal Procedure 1002 is approved, all as follows.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. No. 103(b), and shall be effective April 1, 2010.
JOHN A. VASKOV,
Deputy Prothonotary
Annex A
TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I. GENERAL
CHAPTER 5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES
PART B(3). Arrest Procedures in Court Cases
(a) Arrest Warrants Rule 515. Execution of Arrest Warrant.
* * * * * (C) When the warrant has been issued by a magisterial district judge, and the defendant cannot be found, the case shall remain in the magisterial district, and shall not be forwarded to the court of common pleas for further proceedings.
Comment No substantive change in the law is intended by paragraph (A) of this rule; rather, it was adopted to carry on those provisions of the now repealed Criminal Procedure Act of 1860 that had extended the legal efficacy of an arrest warrant beyond the jurisdictional limits of the issuing authority. The Judicial Code now provides that the territorial scope of process shall be prescribed by the Supreme Court's procedural rules. 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 931(d), 1105(b), 1123(c), 1143(b), 1302(c), 1515(b).
For the definition of police officer, see Rule [3] 103.
Section 8953 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8953, provides for the execution of warrants of arrest beyond the territorial limits of the police officer's primary jurisdiction. See also Commonwealth v. Mason, 507 Pa. 396, 490 A.2d 421 ([Pa.] 1985).
Pursuant to Rule 540, the defendant is to receive a copy of the warrant and the supporting affidavit at the time of the preliminary arraignment.
For purposes of executing an arrest warrant under this rule, warrant information transmitted by using advanced communication technology has the same force and effect as an original arrest warrant. This rule does not require that the transmitted warrant information be an exact copy of the original warrant. Nothing in this rule, however, is intended to curtail the Rule 540(C) requirement that the issuing authority provide the defendant with an exact copy of the warrant. See Rule 513 (Requirements for Issuance).
Paragraph (C) abolishes the traditional practice known as ''NEI'' or ''no est inventus'' as being no longer necessary.
Official Note: Formerly Rule 124, adopted January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; renumbered Rule 122 and Comment revised August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 515 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised May 10, 2002, effective September 1, 2002; amended February 12, 2010, effective April 1, 2010.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the August 9, 1994 Comment revisions published at 22 Pa.B. 6, 18 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court's Order at 24 Pa.B. 4325, 4342 (August 27, 1994).
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477, 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the May 10, 2002 Comment revision concerning advanced communication technology published with the Court's Order at 32 Pa.B. 2582, 2591 (May 25, 2002).
Final Report explaining the February 12, 2010 changes adding new paragraph (C) and the Comment revision published with the Court's Order at 40 Pa. B. 1068, 1071 (February 27, 2010).
PART D. Proceedings in Court Cases Before
Issuing AuthoritiesRule 541. Waiver of Preliminary Hearings.
* * * * * (D) Once a preliminary hearing is waived and the case bound over to the court of common pleas, if the right to a preliminary hearing is subsequently reinstated, the preliminary hearing shall be held at the court of common pleas unless the parties agree, with the consent of the common pleas judge, that the preliminary hearing be held before the issuing authority.
* * * * * Official Note: Rule 140A adopted April 26, 1979, effective July 1, 1979; amended November 9, 1984, effective January 2, 1985; renumbered Rule 541 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended February 12, 2010, effective April 1, 2010.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477, 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the February 12, 2010 amendments adding new paragraph (D) concerning reinstatement of a waived preliminary hearing published with the Court's Order at 40 Pa.B. 1068, 1071 (February 27, 2010).
Rule 543. Disposition of Case at Preliminary Hearing.
* * * * * (G) Except as provided in Rule 541(D), once a case is bound over to the court of common pleas, the case shall not be remanded to the issuing authority.
Comment * * * * * In those cases in which a prima facie case is not established at the preliminary hearing, and the Commonwealth does not request that the issuing authority proceed on the summary offenses, the issuing authority should dismiss the complaint, and discharge the defendant unless there are outstanding detainers against the defendant that would prevent the defendant's release.
Paragraph (G) emphasizes the general rule that once a case has been bound over to the court of common pleas, it shall not be remanded to the issuing authority. There is a limited exception to the general rule in the situation in which the right to a previously waived preliminary hearing is reinstated and the parties agree, with the consent of the common pleas judge, that the preliminary hearing be held before the issuing authority. See Rule 541(D).
* * * * * Official Note: Original Rule 123, adopted June 30, 1964, effective January 1, 1965, suspended January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970. New Rule 123 adopted January 31, 1970, effective May 1, 1970; renumbered Rule 143 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; amended September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective date extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective date extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 142 October 8, 1999, effective January 1, 2000; renumbered Rule 543 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended August 24, 2004, effective August 1, 2005; amended December 30, 2005, effective August 1, 2006; amended March 9, 2006, effective September 1, 2006; amended May 1, 2007, effective September 4, 2007, and May 1, 2007 Order amended May 15, 2007; amended July 10, 2008, effective February 1, 2009; amended February 12, 2010, effective April 1, 2010.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6, 18 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court's Order at 24 Pa.B. 4325, 4342 (August 27, 1994).
Final Report explaining the September 13, 1995 amendments published with the Court's Order at 25 Pa.B. 4100, 4116 (September 30, 1995).
Final Report explaining the October 8, 1999 renumbering of Rule 143 published with the Court's Order at 29 Pa.B. 5505, 5509 (October 23, 1999).
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477, 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the August 24, 2004 changes concerning the procedures when a defendant fails to appear published with the Court's Order at 34 Pa.B. 5016, 5025 (September 11, 2004).
Final Report explaining the December 30, 2005 changes adding references to bench warrants published with the Court's Order at 36 Pa.B. 181, 184 (January 14, 2006).
Final Report explaining the March 9, 2006 amendments adding new paragraphs (E) and (F) published with the Court's Order at 36 Pa.B. 1385, 1392 (March 25, 2006).
Final Report explaining the May 19, 2006 amendments correcting cross-references to Rule 529 published with the Court's Order at 36 Pa.B. 2631, 2633 (June 3, 2006).
Final Report explaining the May 1, 2007 changes clarifying the procedures when a defendant fails to appear published with the Court's Order at 37 Pa.B. 2496, 2503 (June 2, 2007).
Final Report explaining the July 10, 2008 amendments to paragraphs (C) and (D)(2)(c) concerning administrative processing and identification procedures published with the Court's Order at 38 Pa.B. 3971, 3975 (July 26, 2008).
Final Report explaining the February 12, 2010 amendments adding new paragraph (G) prohibiting remands to the issuing authority published with the Court's Order at 40 Pa.B. 1068, 1071 (February 27, 2010).
PART E. Procedures Following a Case
Held for CourtRule 561. Withdrawal of Charges by Attorney for the Commonwealth.
* * * * * (C) In any case in which all the misdemeanor, felony, and murder charges are withdrawn pursuant to this rule, any remaining summary offenses shall be disposed of in the court of common pleas.
Comment Court approval is not required for the withdrawal of charges prior to the filing of an information. Cf. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8932 and Rule 585 (Nolle Prosequi).
Official Note: Former Rule 224 adopted November 22, 1971, effective immediately; amended February 15, 1974, effective immediately; amended April 26, 1979, effective July 1, 1979; rescinded August 12, 1993, effective September 1, 1993. New Rule 224 adopted August 14, 1995, effective January 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 561 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended February 12, 2010, effective April 1, 2010.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the August 12, 1993 rescission published at 22 Pa.B. 3826, 3836 (July 25, 1992).
Final Report explaining the August 14, 1995 amendments published with the Court's Order at 25 Pa.B. 3468, 3471 (August 26, 1995).
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477, 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the February 12, 2010 amendments adding new paragraph (C) concerning disposition of summary offenses at the court of common pleas published at 40 Pa.B. 1068, 1071 (February 27, 2010).
PART F(1). Motion Procedures Rule 589. Pretrial Disposition of Summary Offenses Joined with Misdemeanor, Felony, or Murder Charges.
* * * * * (B) [In no event shall the trial judge remand the summary offense to the issuing authority for disposition] In any case in which all the misdemeanor, felony, and murder charges are withdrawn pursuant to Rule 561, any remaining summary offenses shall be disposed of in the court of common pleas.
* * * * * Official Note: Adopted March 9, 2006, effective September 1, 2006; amended February 12, 2010, effective April 1, 2010.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the new rule published with the Court's Order at 36 Pa.B. 1385, 1392 (March 25, 2006).
Final Report explaining the February 12, 2010 amendments to paragraph (B) concerning the disposition of summary offenses at the court of common pleas published with the Court's Order at 40 Pa.B. 1068, 1071 (February 27, 2010).
CHAPTER 10. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE PHILADELPHIA MUNICIPAL COURT AND THE PHILADELPHIA TRAFFIC COURT
PART A. Philadelphia Municipal Court Procedures Rule 1002. Procedure in Summary Cases.
* * * * *
Comment This rule, which replaced former Rule 1002 in 2005, was developed to accommodate the procedures Philadelphia Municipal Court has implemented to address the issues in non-traffic summary cases unique to Philadelphia to more efficiently handle the vast number of non-traffic summary cases, to protect the defendants' rights to a fair and prompt disposition of their cases, and, when appropriate, to provide the necessary rehabilitations or social services. Municipal Court is required to implement local rules pursuant to Rule 105 (Local Rules) enumerating the details of the summary proceedings following the issuance of a citation or a summons. For purposes of this rule, ''local rule'' includes all memoranda of understanding and administrative orders that affect non-traffic summary case procedures.
Once a summary case is appealed to the Court of Common Pleas for trial de novo, the case shall remain in the Court of Common Pleas. See also Rule 462 and its Comment.
* * * * * Official Note: Rule 6002 adopted June 28, 1974, effective July 1, 1974; amended July 1, 1980, effective August 1, 1980; Comment revised January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; amended July 12, 1985, effective January 1, 1986; January 1, 1986 effective date extended to July 1, 1986; amended February 1, 1989, effective July 1, 1989; amended August 9, 1994, effective January 1, 1995; renumbered Rule 1002 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001. Rule 1002 rescinded August 15, 2005, effective February 1, 2006, and replaced by new Rule 1002; amended May 12, 2009, effective February 1, 2010; Comment revised February 12, 2010, effective April 1, 2010.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the August 9, 1994 amendments published at 22 Pa.B. 6, 18 (January 4, 1992); Final Report published with the Court's Order at 24 Pa.B. 4325, 4342 (August 27, 1994).
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477, 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published with the Court's Order at 35 Pa.B. 4914, 4918 (September 3, 2005).
Final Report explaining the May 12, 2009 changes to paragraph (B) concerning issuing citations and arrest without warrants in summary cases published at 39 Pa.B. 2568, 2569 (May 23, 2009).
Final Report explaining the February 12, 2010 Comment revision concerning the disposition of summary offenses at the court of common pleas published with the Court's Order at 40 Pa.B. 1068, 1071 (February 27, 2010).
Rule 1010. Procedure on Appeal.
(A) The attorney for the Commonwealth, upon receiving the notice of appeal, shall prepare an information and the matter shall thereafter be treated in the same manner as any other court case.
(B) If the defendant fails to appear for the trial de novo, the Common Pleas Court judge may dismiss the appeal and enter judgment in the Court of Common Pleas on the judgment of the Municipal Court judge.
(C) If the defendant withdraws the appeal, the Common Pleas Court judge shall enter judgment in the Court of Common Pleas on the judgment of the Municipal Court judge.
Comment In any case in which there are summary offenses joined with the misdemeanor charges that are the subject of the appeal, the attorney for the Commonwealth must include the summary offenses in the information. See Commonwealth v. Speller, 311 Pa. Super. 569, 458 A.2d 198 (1983).
Official Note: Rule 6010 adopted December 30, 1968, effective January 1, 1969; amended July 1, 1980, effective August 1, 1980; amended August 28, 1998, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 1010 March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised March 9, 2006, effective September 1, 2006; amended February 12, 2010, effective April 1, 2010.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the August 28, 1998 amendment published with the Court's Order at 28 Pa.B. 4625, 4627 (September 12, 1998).
Final Report explaining the March 1, 2000 reorganization and renumbering of the rules published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 1477, 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the March 3, 2006 Comment revision concerning joinder of summary offenses with misdemeanor charges published with the Court's Order at 36 Pa.B. 1385, 1392 (March 25, 2006).
Final Report explaining the February 12, 2010 amendments to paragraph (B) concerning the disposition of summary offenses at the court of common pleas published with the Court's Order at 40 Pa.B. 1068, 1071 (February 27, 2010).
FINAL REPORT1
Amendments to Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 515, 541, 543, 561, 589, 1002 and 1010
REMANDS OF CASES FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS On February 12, 2010, effective April 1, 2010, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court amended Rules of Criminal Procedure 515 (Execution of Arrest Warrant), 541 (Waiver of Preliminary Hearing), 543 (Disposition of Case at Preliminary Hearing), 561 (Withdrawal of Charges By Attorney for the Commonwealth), 589 (Pretrial Disposition of Summary Offenses Joined With Misdemeanor, Felony, or Murder Charges), and 1010 (Procedure on Appeal) and approved the revisions to the Comment to Rule of Criminal Procedure 1002 (Procedure in Summary Cases) to preclude the practice of remanding cases from the court of common pleas to the magisterial district judge or the Philadelphia Municipal Court in several situations. The amendments address three areas in which remands from the court of common pleas to the issuing authority still are occurring despite the Court's policy that prohibits such remands: (1) the practice of remanding cases for a preliminary hearing where a defendant who was designated as ''NEI'' is apprehended; (2) use of remands as remedies for a waived preliminary hearing; and (3) the practice of remanding cases without court involvement when the district attorney withdraws felony/misdemeanor prior to the filing of the information.
I. Introduction
It has been a long-standing general requirement reflected in the Rules of Criminal Procedure that once a summary case moves to the court of common pleas, the case must stay in the court of common pleas and may not be remanded to the issuing authority.2 This requirement applies both to summary cases on appeal for a trial de novo, Rule 462, and in cases in which the summary offenses have been joined with misdemeanor or felony charges, even when only summary charges remain. See, for example, Rules 313, 585, 589 and 622.
As a result of reports of several counties violating these requirements, on September 28, 2006, then-Chief Justice Cappy sent a letter to all President Judges emphasizing this point. After the Chief Justice's letter went out, the Committee received several inquiries from different judicial districts seeking clarification on whether certain remand practices violated the prohibition. Several counties raised scenarios in which cases are being remanded in circumstances that potentially were in contravention of Rules 589 and 622.
The Committee reviewed these scenarios and determined that rules changes were needed to make it clear in the rules that remands are improper in the following three situations:
1) The case is forwarded to the court of common pleas under the ''NEI'' practice. In these cases, the defendant has not been apprehended when the case is forwarded, nor has the defendant had a preliminary hearing. The defendant subsequently is apprehended before the filing of the criminal information occurs pursuant to Rule 565(A). In these situations, in some judicial districts, the case is remanded to the issuing authority for a preliminary hearing.
2) An originally unrepresented defendant initially waives the right to preliminary hearing and later, presumably after representation is obtained, requests such a hearing. It appears that these cases are being remanded to the issuing authority to hold the preliminary hearing as a matter of course.
3) In cases in which summary offenses are joined with misdemeanor and felony charges, and, pursuant to Rule 561, the district attorney withdraws all the misdemeanor and/or felony charges prior to the filing of the information, leaving only summary offenses, the district attorney remands the case, without any court involvement, to the issuing authority for disposition of the summary offenses.
While the specifics of each of the rules changes for these scenarios are addressed separately below, the general concept of the changes is that, once a case has been transferred from the issuing authority to the court of common pleas, the cases must remain at the court of common pleas for further proceedings.
There are several reasons for the strong policy against remanding cases. First, there is the question of jurisdiction; once a case has moved from the issuing authority, the power of the issuing authority to hear the case comes into question. Second, any time a case moves from one level of court to another, there will be delays and complications that result from the physical requirements of the transfer.
II. Discussion of Proposed Amendments
1. NEI
The first remand situation occurs in cases declared ''NEI,'' where the defendant never had a preliminary hearing, and is then apprehended before the filing of the information occurs pursuant to Rule 565(A).
''NEI,'' an abbreviation for the phrase ''non est inventus,'' is the procedure used in some counties when a warrant has been issued for the defendant's arrest, the defendant cannot be found, and the case is transferred to the common pleas court for further proceedings. While the terminology is traditional, there is no written authority in the rules or statutes for the practice.
Presently, the practice is used in a limited number of counties to ensure that warrants initially issued by magisterial district judges are placed on law enforcement computer systems such as National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) system and the Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network (CLEAN). Another reason for its use is to transfer the warrant to a central fugitive unit at the county level.
The Court has approved the abolition of the practice of NEI, believing that there is no justification for the transfer of jurisdiction at this stage in the proceedings for essentially administrative law enforcement purposes. Currently, there is nothing to prevent the entry of issuing authority warrants on law enforcement systems such as CLEAN and NCIC except limited manpower. Additionally, with advances in systems technology, issuing authority warrant information will soon be routinely added to these systems via Magisterial District Justice System feeds to law enforcement networks. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent a county from adopting a policy of providing all issuing authority warrants to a centralized fugitive unit upon their issuance.
Therefore, a new paragraph (C) is added to Rule 515 that abolishes the practice of transferring ''NEI'' cases to the court of common pleas solely on the basis of the defendant being a fugitive. Since these types of cases will no longer be transferred to the court of common pleas, upon apprehension, the case still will be within the jurisdiction of the issuing authority and will not need to be remanded.
2. Remand as Remedy for Waived Preliminary Hearing
The second remand scenario arises when an originally unrepresented defendant initially waives the right to have a preliminary hearing and later, presumably after representation is obtained, requests such a hearing. The Committee received reports that these requests are being granted as a matter of course despite appropriate waiver colloquies having been conducted.
The Court has concluded that, ordinarily, there is no need to remand for a preliminary hearing in these situations; rather, if it is determined that the defendant should be granted a preliminary hearing, the preliminary hearing should be held in the court of common pleas. The one exception to this ''no remands'' policy is when all the parties, with the consent of the court, agree to a return of the case to the magisterial district judge. The Committee had received several publication responses arguing for this exception. The majority of the Committee members, after an extensive debate, ultimately concluded that it makes sense to carve out this limited exception. The Committee considered the suggestion that such an exception would emasculate the provision since the parties will always agree and the court will always consent to have the case returned to the issuing authority. The Court has concluded that this dire prediction is unlikely, believing that the requirement that all parties and the court must agree to the remand would limit its use to appropriate cases.
Accordingly, Rule 541(D) is amended to provide that, after the defendant has waived the preliminary hearing and the case is held for court, there are no remands from common pleas court to the magisterial district judge for a preliminary hearing absent an agreement of the parties with the consent of the common pleas judge. Also, a new paragraph is added to Rule 543 to emphasize further the ''no remands'' policy.
3. Withdrawal of felony/misdemeanor prior to information.
The third circumstance in which cases are being remanded from common pleas to the issuing authority is cases in which the summary offense has been joined with misdemeanor or felony charges, and, pursuant to Rule 561, the Commonwealth withdraws all the misdemeanor and/or felony charges, leaving only summary offenses. In some instances, the district attorney ''remands'' the case, without any court involvement, to the issuing authority for disposition of the summary offenses. Similarly, pursuant to Rule 589, when the misdemeanor and felony charges are dismissed and the Commonwealth does not appeal the dismissal, in some instances, the court will remand the summary offenses to the magisterial district judge for disposition.
The Court has concluded that there is no reason why these types of cases should be remanded. Since the case has gone up as a court case, the case remains a court case, and should be disposed of in common pleas court. Therefore, Rules 561 and 589 have been amended to provide that summary charges must be handled in common pleas court when the attorney for the Commonwealth decides to withdraw all non-summary charges and not to file an information.
Several publication comments were received that suggested that a complete ban on remands in this situation when only the summary offenses remain creates a problem in cases in which the defendant is on state parole and charged with a summary offense. The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (PBPP) interpreted the Parole Act, 61 P. S. § 331.1 et seq., as differentiating between convictions in a court of record and those in a magistrate's court, with the former resulting in a revocation of a defendant's street time. On the other hand, the Board would not count a summary conviction at common pleas as a conviction by a court of record if the common pleas judge were declared to have been sitting as a magistrate but only when that declaration is made by the president judge. The Committee considered adding a provision to the Comments to Rules 561 and 589 explaining that for purposes of 61 P. S. § 331.21a(a), the common pleas court is not a court of record when disposing of summary offenses and 3rd degree misdemeanors. However, the Committee ultimately rejected this suggestion, believing that the relative rarity of this problem should not be the basis for such a broad interpretation to be added to the rules. Subsequently, the case of Jackson v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 951 A.2d 1238 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008), which determined that the Parole Board's interpretation is incorrect, appears to have addressed this concern.
4. Applicability to the Philadelphia Municipal Court
Following the publication of the proposed rule changes, the Committee considered in detail whether the proposal should be made specifically applicable to the Philadelphia Special Courts. Rule 1000 provides that, absent a specific rule applicable to practice in the Special Courts or local rule, the general rules of procedure would apply. The Committee was concerned that the unique requirements of the Philadelphia Special Court would be adversely impacted by a casual application of these changes. The Committee therefore discussed this matter with representatives of the Municipal Court and the Traffic Court and reviewed their procedures regarding the practice of having cases remanded from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.
In the case of the Municipal Court, it was determined that there are no reasons why this clarification of the ''no-remands'' policy should not be stated to be applicable to appeals from the Municipal Court. Therefore, the Rule 1002 Comment is revised to state that summary appeals shall not be remanded to the Municipal Court.
Additionally, Rule 1010 is amended to clarify that the procedures in an appeal from the Municipal Court where the defendant subsequently fails to appear for the trial de novo or withdraws the appeal are consistent with the procedures contained in Rule 462 and that the judgment of the Municipal Court may be entered in the Court of Common Pleas.
The Committee's examination of appeal practice from the Traffic Court raised additional issues that were addressed in a separate proposal that was developed in conjunction with representatives of the Traffic Court and the First Judicial District. This proposal was adopted by the Court on October 16, 2009.3
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 10-352. Filed for public inspection February 26, 2010, 9:00 a.m.] _______
1 The Committee's Final Reports should not be confused with the official Committee Comments to the rules. Also note that the Supreme Court does not adopt the Committee's Comments or the contents of the Committee's explanatory Final Reports.
2 This policy has been set forth specifically in several of the Committee's Recommendations adopted by the Court. For example, it may be found in the Final Reports to Recommendation 3 of 2003 (292 Criminal Procedural Rules Doc. 2, February 28, 2003, see 33 Pa.B. 1324), and Recommendation 5 of 2006, (342 Criminal Procedural Rules Doc. 2, see 36 Pa.B. 1385). There is also the above-mentioned then-Chief Justice Cappy's letter of September 28, 2006 to all President Judges emphasizing this policy. Despite these clear statements, the Committee continued to receive reports from Clerks of Courts and the AOPC automation staff that common pleas judges still are remanding in many cases which clearly should remain in the court of common pleas.
3 See 39 Pa.B. 6327 (October 31, 2009).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
