# Commonwealth v. Waldman

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 16, 1979 · 484 Pa. 217

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644532

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Ralph WALDMAN, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 16, 1979
- **Citations:** 484 Pa. 217; 398 A.2d 1022; 1979 Pa. LEXIS 469
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Larsen
- **Judges:** Eagen, Larsen, Manderino, Nix, O'Brien, Pomeroy, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644532

## Opinion text

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Judgment of sentence should be affirmed. In support thereof, I quote from the excellent trial opinion, dated December 3, 1974, authored by the Honorable Richard S. Lowe:
This Court deems it especially significant that the announcement of a late April or May trial date met with the express approval and approbation of all parties at the pretrial conference. Moreover, no objection was voiced to the democratically and courteously selected trial date until the eve of trial. After silently ensconcing their rights for two and one-half months, the defendants entreat this Court to set them free because of an allegedly illegal delay. This Court is not persuaded that Rule 1100 was intended to effect such an outrageous outcome. When a trial judge espouses a plan to accommodate the schedules of two out-of-state attorneys, the District Attorney’s Of *240 fice, and the administrative arm of the court in arriving at a convenient trial date within a general time frame, and when the defense counsel expressly approve such a plan, a violation of Rule 1100 is waived. That defense counsel did not expressly approve the exact date selected is of no moment. Any date within the suggested period would have exceeded 270 days from the date of arrest. Consequently, approval of the suggested period constituted a waiver for its duration.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9644532. Public record. Not legal advice.