# Commonwealth v. Metzger

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · June 29, 1977 · 249 Pa. Super. 107

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729739

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Russell M. METZGER, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 29, 1977
- **Citations:** 249 Pa. Super. 107; 375 A.2d 781; 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2029
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Spaeth
- **Judges:** Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth, Spaeth
- **Cited by:** 26 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/9729739

## Opinion text

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
In my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Lewis, 247 Pa.Super. 46 , 371 A.2d 1318 (1977), I expressed my opinion that the holding of Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 469 Pa. 214 , 364 A.2d 1345 (1976), should be applied to cases decided prior to the announcement of the decision. That is, when we are called upon to review the grant of an extension of time under Rule 1100(c) on account of judicial delay, we must apply the Mayfield standard that “ . . . the record must also show the causes of the court delay and the reasons why the delay cannot be avoided.” Id. 469 Pa. at 222 , 364 A.2d at 1350 . In my view if there is no such record showing then the record must be remanded.
*117 In this case I would not remand since the lower court’s opinion, while written without the benefit of the Court’s opinion in Mayfield , shows a sufficient explanation for the delay and the reasons it could not be avoided.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9729739. Public record. Not legal advice.