734 Order adopting new Rule 300; amending Rules 21 and 4015; and approving the revision of the comments to Rules 25 and 1100; no. 263 criminal procedural rules; doc. no. 2
Title 234--RULES OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE[234 PA. CODE CHS. 1, 5, 6, 20, 300,
1100 AND 4000]
; No. 263 Criminal Procedural Rules; Doc. No. 2Order Adopting New Rule 300; Amending Rules 21 and 4015; and Approving the Revision of the Comments to Rules 25 and 11001 [30 Pa.B. 2211] The Criminal Procedural Rules Committee has prepared a Final Report explaining new Rule of Criminal Procedure 300 (Transfer of Proceedings), the amendments to Rules 21 (Venue) and 4015 (Receipt for Deposit; Return of Deposit), and the revision of the Comments to Rules 25 (Objections to Venue) and 1100 (Prompt Trial) that were adopted April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000. These rule changes provide uniform procedures for the institution or transfer of proceedings in cases in which there are multiple charges in more than one judicial district, or multiple charges in more than one magisterial district within one judicial district, arising from a single criminal episode. The Final Report follows the Court's Order.
Order Per Curiam:
Now, this 20th day of April, 2000, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee; the proposal having been published before adoption at 28 Pa.B. 475 (January 31, 1998), and in the Atlantic Reporter (Second Series Advance Sheets, Vol. 703), 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) Rule of Criminal Procedure 300 is hereby promulgated;
(2) Rules of Criminal Procedure 21 and 4015 are amended; and
(3) the revision of the Comments to Rules of Criminal Procedure 25 and 1100 is approved,
all in the following form.
This Order shall be processed in accordance with Pa.R.J.A. 103(b), and shall be effective July 1, 2000.
Annex A TITLE 234. RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART I. GENERAL CHAPTER 20. ISSUING AUTHORITIES: VENUE, LOCATIONS AND RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS Rule 21. Venue; Transfer of Proceedings.2
(a) Venue
All criminal proceedings shall be brought before the issuing authority for the magisterial district [where] in which the offense is alleged to have occurred or before an issuing authority on temporary assignment to serve such magisterial district, subject, however, to the following exceptions:
[(a)] (1) A criminal proceeding may be brought before any issuing authority of any magisterial district within the judicial district whenever the particular place within the judicial district where the offense is alleged to have occurred is unknown.
(2) When charges arising from the same criminal episode occur in more than one magisterial district within the same judicial district, the criminal proceeding on all the charges should be brought before one issuing authority in any one of the magisterial districts in which the charges arising from the same criminal episode occurred.
(3) When charges arising from the same criminal episode occur in more than one judicial district, the criminal proceeding on all the charges should be brought before one issuing authority in a magisterial district within any of the judicial districts in which the charges arising from the same criminal episode occurred.
[(b)] (4) Whenever an arrest is made without a warrant for any summary offense arising under the Vehicle Code, which allegedly occurred on a highway of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System or any controlled or limited access highway, or any right-of-way of such System or highway, or any other highway or highways of the Commonwealth, the defendant shall be taken and the proceeding shall be brought either where the offense allegedly occurred, or before the issuing authority for any other magisterial district within the same judicial district which, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary line of any magisterial district or county.
[(c)] (5) [Where] When any offense is alleged to have occurred within 100 yards of the boundary between two or more magisterial districts of a judicial district, the proceeding may be brought in either or any of the magisterial districts without regard to the boundary lines of any county.
[(d)] (6) [Where] When the [President] president [Judge] judge designates a magisterial district or a location in that district in which certain classes of offenses, which occurred in other specified magisterial districts, may be heard.
(b) Transfer of Proceedings
(1) Prior to the completion of the preliminary hearing:
(a) When charges arising from a single criminal episode, which occurred in more than one judicial district,
(i) are filed in more than one judicial district, upon the filing with the issuing authority of a written agreement by the attorneys for the Commonwealth, the proceedings shall be transferred to the magisterial district in the judicial district selected by the attorneys for the Commonwealth; or
(ii) are filed in one judicial district, upon the filing of a written agreement by the attorneys for the Commonwealth, the proceedings shall be transferred to the magisterial district in the judicial district selected by the attorneys for the Commonwealth.
(b) When charges arising from a single criminal episode, which occurred in more than one magisterial district,
(i) are filed in more than one magisterial district, the proceedings may be transferred to the magisterial district selected by the attorney for the Commonwealth; or
(ii) are filed in one magisterial district, the proceedings may be transferred to another magisterial district selected by the attorney for the Commonwealth.
(2) The issuing authority shall promptly transmit to the issuing authority of the magisterial district to which the proceedings are being transferred a certified copy of all docket entries, together with all the original papers filed in the proceeding, a copy of the bail bond and any deposits in satisfaction of a monetary condition of bail, and a bill of the costs which have accrued but have not been collected prior to the transfer.
Comment Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (A)(3), paragraph (a) of [This] this rule governs venue between magisterial districts within the same judicial district, i.e., the matter of where a proceeding is to be brought within the judicial district having jurisdiction.
Paragraph (a)(3), which is an exception to the general rule governing venue, was added in 2000 in view of Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997), in which the Court held that ''all charges stemming from a single criminal episode'' must be joined in a single trial ''despite the fact that some of the charges arose in a different county.'' Accordingly, when charges arising from a single criminal episode occur in more than one judicial district, the magisterial district in which the proceeding on all the charges is brought, i.e., the one with venue, may be any one of the magisterial districts in which the charges occurred.
Similarly, when charges arising from a single criminal episode occur in more than one magisterial district within one judicial district, the magisterial district in which the proceeding on all the charges is brought, i.e., the one with venue, may be any one of the magisterial districts in which the charges occurred.
The decision of in which magisterial district in paragraph (a)(2) or in which judicial district in paragraph (a)(3) the proceedings are to be brought is to be made initially by the law enforcement officers or attorneys for the Commonwealth. In making the decision, the law enforcement officers or attorneys for the Commonwealth must consider in which magisterial district under paragraph (a)(2) or in which judicial district under paragraph (a)(3) it would be in the interests of justice to have the case proceed, based upon the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
See Rule 25 (Objections to Venue)3 for the procedures to challenge a transfer of proceedings under this rule.
See Rule 151 for the procedures to withdraw the prosecution.4
See Chapter 4000 concerning bail.5
Official Note: Formerly Rule 154, adopted January 16, 1970, effective immediately; section (a)(3) adopted July 1, 1970, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 21 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended July 1, 1980, effective August 1, 1980; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; renumbered Rule 130 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
* * * * * 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. 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the April 20, 2000 amendments concerning multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
Rule 25. Objections to Venue.
6* * * * * Comment An objection to venue under this rule would include a challenge to the transfer of proceedings pursuant to Rule 21(B).7
Official Note: Formerly Rule 155, adopted January 6, 1970, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 25 September 18, 1973, effective January 16, 1974; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; renumbered Rule 134 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
* * * * * 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. 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the April 20, 2000 amendments concerning multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
(Editor's Note: The following rule is a new rule and is printed in regular type to enhance readability.)
CHAPTER 300. PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS Rule 300. Transfer of Proceedings.8
(A) In all cases in which charges arising from a single criminal episode occur in more than one judicial district:
(1) If the charges are filed in more than one judicial district, at any time after the case is held for court, the proceedings shall be transferred to one of the judicial districts.
(2) If all the charges are filed in one judicial district, at any time after the case is held for court, the proceedings may be transferred to another one of the judicial districts.
(B) The judicial district to which the proceedings are to be transferred shall be determined either:
(1) by written agreement of the parties, filed with the clerk(s) of courts of the judicial district(s) in which the charges are pending; or
(2) by written agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth, filed with the clerk(s) of courts of the judicial district(s) in which the charges are pending, with service upon the defendant or defendant's counsel, and an opportunity for the defendant to object.
(C) Upon the filing of the agreement of the parties in paragraph (B)(1), the court promptly shall order the transfer of the proceedings.
(D) Upon the filing of the agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth in paragraph (B)(2),
(1) absent an objection within 10 days of filing, the court promptly shall order the transfer of the proceedings.
(2) In those cases in which an objection is filed by the defendant, the court shall promptly dispose of the objection. If the objection is denied, the court immediately thereafter shall order the transfer of the proceedings.
(E) Upon the issuance of the transfer order pursuant to paragraphs (C), (D)(1), or (D)(2), the clerk(s) of courts of the transferring judicial district(s) shall promptly transmit to the clerk of courts of the judicial district to which the proceedings are being transferred a certified copy of all docket entries, together with all the original papers filed in the proceeding in the clerk's judicial district, a copy of the bail bond and any deposits in satisfaction of a monetary condition of bail, and a bill of the costs which have accrued but have not been collected prior to the transfer.
(F) When a proceeding is transferred pursuant to this rule, the case shall proceed to trial and judgment in the same manner as if the proceeding had been instituted in the transfer judicial district.
(1) If the proceeding is transferred before an information has been filed in the transferring judicial district, the attorney for the Commonwealth in the transfer judicial district shall join the charges from the transferring judicial district with the charges in the transfer judicial district in the same information.
(2) If the proceeding is transferred after an information has been filed, the attorney for the Commonwealth in the transfer judicial district shall proceed pursuant to Rule 1127 (Joinder--Trial of Separate Indictments or Informations).9
(3) The results of any pretrial proceedings that have been completed in the transferring judicial district shall be binding on the transfer judicial district proceedings.
(4) Costs, not previously collected, shall be collected in the transfer judicial district.
(G) If the defendant is in custody in a transferring judicial district, the order transferring the case shall provide that the defendant shall be delivered to the custody of the sheriff of the transfer judicial district.
Comment The Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997), that the trial in one judicial district of some of the charges arising from a single criminal episode may be a bar to the trial in another judicial district of the other charges arising from the same criminal episode. In view of this decision, it is incumbent upon law enforcement officers and prosecutors to be vigilant about instituting proceedings and proceeding to trial in cases in which there are multi-judicial district charges arising from a single criminal episode.
The McPhail decision has necessitated both a clarification of the procedures for the institution of criminal proceedings, and new procedures for the transfer of proceedings in cases in which multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode have occurred in more than one judicial district. See Rule 21(B) for the procedures for transferring charges prior to the preliminary hearing.
In many cases, multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode will be known to the police officers and attorneys for the Commonwealth involved in the case, and will be joined in the first instance in one criminal complaint, and filed before one issuing authority in one judicial district. See Rule 21(A)(3).10 However, since there may be cases in which this does not occur, and the charges are filed in more than one judicial district, new Rule 300 establishes the procedures, after such a case is held for court, for the transfer of proceedings to one judicial district. Rule 300 also governs the transfer of charges in cases in which all the charges are filed in one judicial district, but the parties or the attorneys for the Commonwealth agree that the charges should have been filed in one of the other judicial districts in which the charges occurred.
The procedures in this rule are distinct from the Rule 312 (Motion for Change of Venue or Change of Venire)11 procedures for a change of venue in cases in which it is determined at a hearing that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the case is pending.
It is expected that the parties will be able to agree on the judicial district in which the case should proceed. However, if they cannot agree, paragraph (B)(2) provides for the determination to be by the agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth. In determining the judicial district to which the proceedings are to be transferred, the parties must consider in which judicial district it would be in the interests of justice to have the case proceed, based upon the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
Pursuant to paragraph (B)(2), upon the filing of the agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth, the defendant must be served a copy of the agreement, and be given an opportunity to object to the transfer or to the judicial district selected for the trial.
When an agreement is filed pursuant to this rule, the clerk of courts must promptly transmit the agreement as provided in Rule 9022.12
Pursuant to paragraphs (C) and (D), the court, immediately upon receipt of the agreement, must issue a transfer order, unless the defendant challenges the transfer or the judicial district to which the case would be transferred. ''Court,'' as used in this rule, includes the judge assigned to handle miscellaneous motions in criminal matters or the president judge, unless a judge has already been assigned to the case.
The decision to transfer a proceeding under this rule should be made at the earliest time after the case is held for court, so that most, if not all, of the pretrial proceedings can be accomplished in the transfer judicial district.
For venue between magisterial districts, see Rule 21(A).
For the procedures for the joinder of offenses in a complaint, see Rule 105.13
For the procedures for the joinder of offenses in an information, see Rule 228.14
For the procedures for the joinder or consolidation for trial of offenses charged in separate informations, see Rule 1127.
For the procedures for nolle prosequi, see Rule 313.15
When proceedings are transferred pursuant to this rule, the case is to proceed in the same manner as if the charges had been instituted in the transfer judicial district. If any pretrial proceedings have been conducted in the transferring judicial district, the results of those proceedings will be binding on the proceedings in the transfer judicial district. For example, if discovery has been initiated, and the judge in the transferring judicial district has ordered or denied disclosure, this order would be binding on the judge and parties in the transfer judicial district. See Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995), concerning the coordinate jurisdiction rule and the law of the case doctrine.
Any costs, except bail-related costs, collected before a proceeding is transferred will remain in the transferring judicial district. See Rule 4015 concerning bail-related costs.16
Official Note: Former Rule 300 rescinded June 28, 1974, effective immediately; rescinded and number reserved June 29, 1977, and November 22, 1977, effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is filed on or after January 1, 1978; new Rule 300 adopted April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
* * * * * Committee Explanatory Reports: Final Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
CHAPTER 1100. TRIAL Rule 1100. Prompt Trial.17
* * * * * Comment * * * * * For purposes of determining the time for commencement of trial, paragraph (C) contains the periods which must be excluded from that calculation. For periods of delay that result from the filing and litigation of omnibus pretrial motions for relief or other motions, see Commonwealth v. Hill and Commonwealth v. Cornell, 736 A.2d 578 (Pa. 1999).
* * * * * Although a defendant's removal from the ARD program does not result in a ''new trial'' under paragraph (D)(3), termination of the defendant's ARD program pursuant to Rule 184 commences a new trial period for the purpose of this rule.18
* * * * * When admitted to nominal bail pursuant to this rule, the defendant must execute a bail bond. See Rules 4004 and 4005.19
In addition to requesting that the defendant waive Rule 1100 for the period of enrollment in the ARD program (see Rule 178, paragraph (3)),20 the attorney for the Commonwealth may request that the defendant waive Rule 1100 for the period of time spent in processing and considering the defendant's inclusion into the ARD program.
Official Note: Rule 1100 [Adopted] adopted June 8, 1973, effective prospectively as set forth in paragraphs (A)(1) and (A)(2) of this rule; paragraph (E) amended December 9, 1974, effective immediately; paragraph (E) re-amended June 28, 1976, effective July 1, 1976; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982. (The amendment to paragraph (C)(3)(b) excluding defense-requested continuances was specifically made effective as to continuances requested on or after January 1, 1982.) Amended December 31, 1987, effective immediately; amended September 30, 1988, effective immediately; amended September 3, 1993, effective January 1, 1994; Comment revised 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 600 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
* * * * * 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. 1478 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the April 20, 2000 Comment revision concerning Commonwealth v. Hill and Commonwealth v. Cornell published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
Rule 4015. Receipt for Deposit; Return of Deposit.21
(B) When the deposit is the percentage cash bail authorized by Rule 4007,22 the depositor shall be notified that by signing the bail bond, the depositor becomes a surety for the defendant and is liable for the full amount of the monetary condition in the event the defendant fails to appear or comply as required by these rules.
* * * * * (E) When a case is transferred pursuant to Rule 21(B) or Rule 300,23 the full deposit shall be promptly forwarded to the transfer judicial district, together with any bail-related fees, commissions, or costs paid by the depositor.
Comment * * * * * The full and final disposition of a case includes all avenues of direct appeal in the state courts. Therefore, the return of any deposits would not be required until after either the expiration of the appeal period or, if an appeal is taken, after disposition of the appeal. See Rule 4014.24
* * * * * When a case is transferred pursuant to Rules 21(B) and 300, paragraph (E) and Rules 21(B) and 300 require that any bail-related fees, commissions, or costs collected pursuant to paragraph (D) be forwarded to the transfer judicial district. Fees, commissions, or costs that have been assessed but not paid at the time of transfer may not be collected in the transferring judicial district.
When bail is terminated upon acceptance of the defendant into an ARD program, such action constitutes a ''full and final disposition'' for purposes of this rule and Rule 4014 (Duration of Obligation). See Rule 179.25
Official Note: Former Rule 4015, previously Rule 4009, adopted November 22, 1965, effective June 1, 1966; renumbered Rule 4015, former paragraph (b) integrated into paragraph (a) and new paragraph (b) adopted July 23, 1973, effective 60 days hence; rescinded September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996, and replaced by present Rule 4015. Present Rule 4015 adopted September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective dates extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective dates extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 535 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining new paragraph (E) concerning the interplay with Rules 21(B) and 300 published with Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
(Editor's Note: The following shows the amendments to new Rules 130, 134, 535, 555 and 600. The ellipses refer to the existing text of the rules found at 30 Pa.B. 1477 (March 18, 2000).)
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS PART C. Venue, Location, and Recording of Proceedings before Issuing Authority Rule 130. Venue.
(A) VENUE
All criminal proceedings shall be brought before the issuing authority for the magisterial district [where] in which the offense is alleged to have occurred or before an issuing authority on temporary assignment to serve such magisterial district, subject, however, to the following exceptions:
(1) A criminal proceeding may be brought before any issuing authority of any magisterial district within the judicial district whenever the particular place within the judicial district where the offense is alleged to have occurred in unknown.
(2) When changes arising from the same criminal episode occur in more than one magisterial district within the same judicial district, the criminal proceeding on all the charges should be brought before one issuing authority in any one of the magisterial districts in which the charges arising from the same criminal episode occurred.
(3) When charges arising from the criminal episode occur in more than one judicial district, the criminal proceeding on all the charges should be brought before one issuing authority in a magisterial district within any of the judicial districts in which the charges arising from the same criminal episode occurred.
[(2)] (4) Whenever an arrest is made without a warrant for any summary offense arising under the Vehicle Code, which allegedly occurred on a highway of the Pennsylvania Turnpike System or any controlled or limited access highway, or any right-of-way of such System or highway, or any other highway or highways of the Commonwealth, the defendant shall be taken and the proceeding shall be brought either where the offense allegedly occurred, or before the issuing authority for any other magisterial district within the same judicial district which, in the judgment of the arresting officer, is most convenient to the place of arrest without regard to the boundary line of any magisterial district or county.
[(3)] (5) [Where] When any offense is alleged to have occurred within 100 yards of the boundary between two or more magisterial districts of a judicial district, the proceeding may be brought in either or any of the magisterial districts without regard of the boundary lines of any county.
[(4)] (6) [Where] When the [President Judge] president judge designates a magisterial district or a location in that district in which certain classes of offenses, which occurred in other specified magisterial districts, may be heard.
(b) Transfer of Proceedings
(1) Prior to the completion of the preliminary hearing:
(a) When charges arising from a single criminal episode, which occurred in more than one judicial district,
(i) are filed in more than one judicial district, upon the filing with the issuing authority of a written agreement by the attorneys for the Commonwealth, the proceedings shall be transferred to the magisterial district in the judicial district selected by the attorneys for the Commonwealth; or
(ii) are filed in one judicial district, upon the filing of a written agreement by the attorneys for the Commonwealth, the proceedings shall be transferred to the magisterial district in the judicial district selected by the attorneys for the Commonwealth.
(b) When charges arising from a single criminal episode, which occurred in more than one magisterial district,
(i) are filed in more than one magisterial district, the proceedings may be transferred to the magisterial district selected by the attorney for the Commonwealth; or
(ii) are filed in one magisterial district, the proceedings may be transferred to another magisterial district selected by the attorney for the Commonwealth.
(2) The issuing authority shall promptly transmit to the issuing authority of the magisterial district to which the proceedings are being transferred a certified copy of all docket entries, together with all the original papers filed in the proceeding, a copy of the bail bond and any deposits in satisfaction of a monetary condition of bail, and a bill of the costs which have accrued but have not been collected prior to the transfer.
Comment Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (A)(3), paragraph (A) of [This] this rule governs venue between magisterial districts within the same judicial district, i.e., the matter of where a proceeding is to be brought within the judicial district having jurisdiction.
Paragraph (A)(3), which is an exception to the general rule governing venue, was added in 2000 in view of Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997), in which the Court held that ''all charges stemming from a single criminal episode'' must be joined in a single trial ''despite the fact that some of the charges arose in a different county.'' Accordingly, when charges arising from a single criminal episode occur in more than one judicial district, the magisterial district in which the proceeding on all the charges is brought, i.e., the one with venue, may be any one of the magisterial districts in which the charges occurred.
Similarly, when charges arising from a single criminal episode occur in more than one magisterial district within one judicial district, the magisterial district in which the proceeding on all the charges is brought, i.e., the one with venue, may be any one of the magisterial districts in which the charges occurred.
The decision of in which magisterial district in paragraph (A)(2) or in which judicial district in paragraph (A)(3) the proceedings are to be brought is to be made initially by the law enforcement officers or attorneys for the Commonwealth. In making the decision, the law enforcement officers or attorneys for the Commonwealth must consider in which magisterial district under paragraph (A)(2) or in which judicial district under paragraph (A)(3) it would be in the interests of justice to have the case proceed, based upon the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
See Rule 134 (Objections to Venue) for the procedures to challenge a transfer of proceedings under this rule.
See Rule 551 for the procedures to withdraw the prosecution.
See Chapter 5 Part C concerning bail.
Official Note: Formerly Rule 154, adopted January 16, 1970, effective immediately; section (a)(3) adopted July 1, 1970, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 21 September 18, 1973, effective January 1, 1974; amended July 1, 1980, effective August 1, 1980; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; renumbered Rule 130 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
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 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the April 20, 2000 amendments concerning multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
Rule 134. Objections to Venue.
* * * * * Comment An objection to venue under this rule would include a challenge to the transfer of proceedings pursuant to Rule 130(B).
Official Note: Formerly Rule 155, adopted January 6, 1970, effective immediately; renumbered Rule 25 September 18, 1973, effective January 16, 1974; amended January 28, 1983, effective July 1, 1983; renumbered Rule 134 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
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 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the April 20, 2000 amendments concerning multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
CHAPTER 5. PRETRIAL PROCEDURES IN
COURT CASESPART C(2). General Procedures in All Bail Cases Rule 535. Receipt for Deposit; Return of Deposit.
* * * * * (E) When a case is transferred pursuant to Rule 130(B) or Rule 555, the full deposit shall be promptly forwarded to the transfer judicial district, together with any bail-related fees, commissions, or costs paid by the depositor.
Comment * * * * * When a case is transferred pursuant to Rules 130(B) and 555, paragraph (E) and Rules 130(B) and 555 require that any bail-related fees, commissions, or costs collected pursuant to paragraph (D) be forwarded to the transfer judicial district. Fees, commissions, or costs that have been assessed but not paid at the time of transfer may not be collected in the transferring judicial district.
* * * * * Official Note: Former Rule 4015, previously Rule 4009, adopted November 22, 1965, effective June 1, 1966; renumbered Rule 4015, former paragraph (b) integrated into paragraph (a) and new paragraph (b) adopted July 23, 1973, effective 60 days hence; rescinded September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996, and replaced by present Rule 4015. Present Rule 4015 adopted September 13, 1995, effective January 1, 1996. The January 1, 1996 effective dates extended to April 1, 1996; the April 1, 1996 effective dates extended to July 1, 1996; renumbered Rule 535 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; amended April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
* * * * * Final Report explaining new paragraph (E) concerning the interplay with Rules 21(B) and 300 published with Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
(Editor's Note: The following rule is a new rule and is printed in regular type to enhance readability.)
Rule 555. Transfer of Proceedings.
(A) In all cases in which charges arising from a single criminal episode occur in more than one judicial district:
(1) If the charges are filed in more than one judicial district, at any time after the case is held for court, the proceedings shall be transferred to one of the judicial districts.
(2) If all the charges are filed in one judicial district, at any time after the case is held for court, the proceedings may be transferred to another one of the judicial districts.
(B) The judicial district to which the proceedings are to be transferred shall be determined either:
(1) by written agreement of the parties, filed with the clerk(s) of courts of the judicial district(s) in which the charges are pending; or
(2) by written agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth, filed with the clerk(s) of courts of the judicial district(s) in which the charges are pending, with service upon the defendant or defendant's counsel, and an opportunity for the defendant to object.
(C) Upon the filing of the agreement of the parties in paragraph (B)(1), the court promptly shall order the transfer of the proceedings.
(D) Upon the filing of the agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth in paragraph (B)(2),
(1) absent an objection within 10 days of filing, the court promptly shall order the transfer of the proceedings.
(2) In those cases in which an objection is filed by the defendant, the court shall promptly dispose of the objection. If the objection is denied, the court immediately thereafter shall order the transfer of the proceedings.
(E) Upon the issuance of the transfer order pursuant to paragraphs (C), (D)(1), or (D)(2), the clerk(s) of courts of the transferring judicial district(s) shall promptly transmit to the clerk of courts of the judicial district to which the proceedings are being transferred a certified copy of all docket entries, together with all the original papers filed in the proceeding in the clerk's judicial district, a copy of the bail bond and any deposits in satisfaction of a monetary condition of bail, and a bill of the costs which have accrued but have not been collected prior to the transfer.
(F) When a proceeding is transferred pursuant to this rule, the case shall proceed to trial and judgment in the same manner as if the proceeding had been instituted in the transfer judicial district.
(1) If the proceeding is transferred before an information has been filed in the transferring judicial district, the attorney for the Commonwealth in the transfer judicial district shall join the charges from the transferring judicial district with the charges in the transfer judicial district in the same information.
(2) If the proceeding is transferred after an information has been filed, the attorney for the Commonwealth in the transfer judicial district shall proceed pursuant to Rule 582 (Joinder--Trial of Separate Indictments or Informations).
(3) The results of any pretrial proceedings that have been completed in the transferring judicial district shall be binding on the transfer judicial district proceedings.
(4) Costs, not previously collected, shall be collected in the transfer judicial district.
(G) If the defendant is in custody in a transferring judicial district, the order transferring the case shall provide that the defendant shall be delivered to the custody of the sheriff of the transfer judicial district.
Comment The Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997), that the trial in one judicial district of some of the charges arising from a single criminal episode may be a bar to the trial in another judicial district of the other charges arising from the same criminal episode. In view of this decision, it is incumbent upon law enforcement officers and prosecutors to be vigilant about instituting proceedings and proceeding to trial in cases in which there are multi-judicial district charges arising from a single criminal episode.
The McPhail decision has necessitated both a clarification of the procedures for the institution of criminal proceedings, and new procedures for the transfer of proceedings in cases in which multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode have occurred in more than one judicial district. See Rule 21(B) for the procedures for transferring charges prior to the preliminary hearing.
In many cases, multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode will be known to the police officers and attorneys for the Commonwealth involved in the case, and will be joined in the first instance in one criminal complaint, and filed before one issuing authority in one judicial district. See Rule 130(A)(3). However, since there may be cases in which this does not occur, and the charges are filed in more than one judicial district, new Rule 300 establishes the procedures, after such a case is held for court, for the transfer of proceedings to one judicial district. Rule 300 also governs the transfer of charges in cases in which all the charges are filed in one judicial district, but the parties or the attorneys for the Commonwealth agree that the charges should have been filed in one of the other judicial districts in which the charges occurred.
The procedures in this rule are distinct from the Rule 584 (Motion for Change of Venue or Change of Venire) procedures for a change of venue in cases in which it is determined at a hearing that a fair and impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the case is pending.
It is expected that the parties will be able to agree on the judicial district in which the case should proceed. However, if they cannot agree, paragraph (B)(2) provides for the determination to be by the agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth. In determining the judicial district to which the proceedings are to be transferred, the parties must consider in which judicial district it would be in the interests of justice to have the case proceed, based upon the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.
Pursuant to paragraph (B)(2), upon the filing of the agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth, the defendant must be served a copy of the agreement, and be given an opportunity to object to the transfer or to the judicial district selected for the trial.
When an agreement is filed pursuant to this rule, the clerk of courts must promptly transmit the agreement as provided in Rule 576.
Pursuant to paragraphs (C) and (D), the court, immediately upon receipt of the agreement, must issue a transfer order, unless the defendant challenges the transfer or the judicial district to which the case would be transferred. ''Court,'' as used in this rule, includes the judge assigned to handle miscellaneous motions in criminal matters or the president judge, unless a judge has already been assigned to the case.
The decision to transfer a proceeding under this rule should be made at the earliest time after the case is held for court, so that most, if not all, of the pretrial proceedings can be accomplished in the transfer judicial district.
For venue between magisterial districts, see Rule 21(A).
For the procedures for the joinder of offenses in a complaint, see Rule 505.
For the procedures for the joinder of offenses in an information, see Rule 563.
For the procedures for the joinder or consolidation for trial of offenses charged in separate informations, see Rule 1127.
For the procedures for nolle prosequi, see Rule 585.
When proceedings are transferred pursuant to this rule, the case is to proceed in the same manner as if the charges had been instituted in the transfer judicial district. If any pretrial proceedings have been conducted in the transferring judicial district, the results of those proceedings will be binding on the proceedings in the transfer judicial district. For example, if discovery has been initiated, and the judge in the transferring judicial district has ordered or denied disclosure, this order would be binding on the judge and parties in the transfer judicial district. See Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995), concerning the coordinate jurisdiction rule and the law of the case doctrine.
Any costs, except bail-related costs, collected before a proceeding is transferred will remain in the transferring judicial district. See Rule 535 concerning bail-related costs.
Official Note: Former Rule 300 rescinded June 28, 1974, effective immediately; rescinded and number reserved June 29, 1977, and November 22, 1977, effective as to cases in which the indictment or information is filed on or after January 1, 1978; new Rule 300 adopted April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
* * * * * Committee Explanatory Reports:
Final Report explaining the provisions of the new rule published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
[Continued on next Web Page] _______
[Continued from previous Web Page] CHAPTER 6. TRIAL PROCEDURES IN COURT CASES PART A. General Provisions Rule 600. Prompt Trial.
* * * * * Comment * * * * * For purposes of determining the time for commencement of trial, paragraph (C) contains the periods which must be excluded from that calculation. For periods of delay that result from the filing and litigation of omnibus pretrial motions for relief or other motions, see Commonwealth v. Hill and Commonwealth v. Cornell, 736 A.2d 578 (Pa. 1999).
Under paragraph (C)(3)(a), in addition to any other circumstances precluding the availability of the defendant or the defendant's attorney, the defendant should be deemed unavailable for the period of time during which the defendant contested extradition, or a responding jurisdiction delayed or refused to grant extradition; or during which the defendant was physically incapacitated or mentally incompetent to proceed; or during which the defendant was absent under compulsory process requiring his or her appearance elsewhere in connection with other judicial proceedings.
* * * * * Official Note: Rule 600 [Adopted] adopted June 8, 1973, effective prospectively as set forth in paragraphs (A)(1) and (A)(2) of this rule; paragraph (E) amended December 9, 1974, effective immediately; paragraph (E) re-amended June 28, 1976, effective July 1, 1976; amended October 22, 1981, effective January 1, 1982. (The amendment to paragraph (C)(3)(b) excluding defense-requested continuances was specifically made effective as to continuances requested on or after January 1, 1982.) Amended December 31, 1987, effective immediately; amended September 30, 1988, effective immediately; amended September 3, 1993, effective January 1, 1994; Comment revised 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 600 and amended March 1, 2000, effective April 1, 2001; Comment revised April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000.
Committee Explanatory Reports:
Report explaining the September 3, 1993 amendments published with the Court's Order at 23 Pa.B. 4492 (September 25, 1993).
Final Report explaining the September 13, 1995 Comment revision published with Court's Order at 25 Pa.B. 4116 (September 30, 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 (March 18, 2000).
Final Report explaining the April 20, 2000 Comment revision concerning Commonwealth v. Hill and Commonwealth v. Cornell published with the Court's Order at 30 Pa.B. 2219 (May 6, 2000).
FINAL REPORT26 Proposed New Pa.R.Crim.P. 300,
amendments to Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 21 and 4015, and
the revision of the Comments to Pa.Rs.Crim.P. 25 and 110027PROCEDURES IN CASES INVOLVING MULTIPLE CHARGES ARISING FROM A SINGLE CRIMINAL EPISODE OCCURRING IN MORE THAN ONE JUDICIAL DISTRICT OR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT On April 20, 2000, effective July 1, 2000, upon the recommendation of the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, the Court adopted new Rule of Criminal Procedure 300 (Transfer of Proceedings), amended Rules 21 (Venue) and 4015 (Receipt for Deposit; Return of Deposit), and approved the revision of the Comments to Rules 25 (Objections to Venue) and 1100 (Prompt Trial). These rule changes provide uniform procedures for the institution or transfer of proceedings in cases in which there are multiple charges in more than one judicial district, or multiple charges in more than one magisterial district within one judicial district, arising from a single criminal episode. The new procedures are necessary to implement the holding in Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A. 2d 139, 144 (Pa. 1997), that ''the place of trial, whether within or without the county where the alleged crime occurred, is a matter of venue, not jurisdiction,'' and therefore, under 18 Pa.C.S. § 110, when all the charges are within the jurisdiction of a single court, and must be joined in a single trial, the trial in one judicial district of some of the charges arising from a single criminal episode is a bar to the trial in another judicial district of the other charges arising from the same criminal episode.
I. Background
Following the Court's decision in Commonwealth v. McPhail, 692 A.2d 139 (Pa. 1997), the Committee received several inquiries concerning the procedures for handling McPhail-type cases, specifically whether the various judicial districts should be using Rule 312 (Motion for Change of Venue or Change of Venire),28 or some other mechanism to move cases from one judicial district to another for trial. In view of these inquiries, the Committee examined the existing Criminal Rules, and procedures in other jurisdictions governing change of venue and transfer of cases. We first looked at Rule 312, and, noting that the Rule 312 ''change of venue to have a fair trial'' concept has been in the rules since 1964, the consensus was that it would be confusing to the bench and bar to expand Rule 312 to include McPhail procedures. Looking at the rest of the rules, we concluded that the existing rules do not accommodate McPhail-type cases, and, in fact, may cause confusion in a McPhail context. See, e.g., Rule 21, which governs venue between magisterial districts. In view of our conclusions, the Committee agreed that the Criminal Rules should be amended to provide specific procedures addressing McPhail, and that we should approach the issue from the perspective of a transfer of proceedings that would be separate and distinct from a Rule 312 change of venue.
II. Discussion
As we discussed how to address the McPhail situation, the Committee recognized that there are several stages within the process that would be implicated:
(1) cases in which charges have not yet been filed;
(2) cases in which charges have been filed in more than one judicial district, but no preliminary hearing has been held;
(3) cases in which the charges have been filed in more than one judicial district, and the charges have been held for court;
(4) cases in which the charges arose in more than one judicial district, were filed in one judicial district, and it is determined before the preliminary hearing that the charges should have been filed in a different judicial district; and
(5) cases in which the charges arose in more than one judicial district, were filed in one judicial district, and it is determined after the preliminary hearing that the charges should have been filed in a different judicial district.
We also considered that comparable issues could come up in the context of multiple offenses stemming from a single criminal episode arising within one judicial district, but in more than one magisterial district, and that the rules should address this scenario as well. In view of these considerations, the Committee agreed that there should be a new rule, Rule 300, to provide the procedures to govern McPhail-type cases after the charges are held for court, and that Rule 21 should be amended to govern McPhail-type cases prior to the preliminary hearing.
A. Pa.R.Crim.P. 21 (Venue)
One of the Committee's considerations concerning Commonwealth v. McPhail, supra, is that the case alters what has been generally accepted as the scope of venue set forth in Rule 21 (Venue). In view of this consideration, we agreed that cases falling within the parameters of McPhail, that is, cases in which there are multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode that are alleged to have been committed in more than one judicial district, should be included within the exceptions to the general venue rule that ''all criminal proceedings shall be brought before the issuing authority for the magisterial district in which the offense is alleged to have occurred,'' as set forth in new paragraph (A) (Venue). Under paragraph (A)(3), it is expected when the law enforcement officers or the attorneys for the Commonwealth in the respective judicial districts are aware that there are multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode, all the charges should be filed before one issuing authority in any of the judicial districts in which the charges occurred. Similarly, paragraph (A)(2) has been added to recognize, as another exception to the general venue rule, the comparable situation in which there are multiple charges arising from a single criminal episode that occur in more than one magisterial district but within the same judicial district.
The second change to Rule 21 is the addition of paragraph (B) (Transfer of Proceedings). This paragraph establishes the procedures for the transfer of proceedings in McPhail-type cases at any time following the filing of charges, but prior to the completion of the preliminary hearing, and was developed following the Committee's consideration of the publication responses. Although we agreed that it is preferable, in the first instance, if all the charges are filed in one judicial district, or in one magisterial district, the Committee recognized that there will be cases in which the police institute the proceedings, and the attorney(s) for the Commonwealth are not involved in the initial decision about where the charges are filed. In these cases, once the attorney(s) for the Commonwealth becomes aware of the police officers' choice, the Committee agreed that the attorney(s) for the Commonwealth, as part of his or her charging function, should be able to have the case transferred to a different judicial district or magisterial district. Rule 21 therefore includes the procedures to accomplish this transfer.
New paragraph (B)(1) provides for the transfer of the proceedings in the four different situations in which such a transfer would be deemed necessary by the attorney(s) for the Commonwealth:
(1) when the charges are filed in more than one judicial district;
(2) when the charges are filed in one judicial district;
(3) when the charges are filed in more than one magisterial district; or
(4) when the charges are filed in one magisterial district.
For a transfer to occur in cases falling within either (1) or (2), subparagraphs (B)(1)(a)(i) and (ii) require the attorneys for the Commonwealth of the respective judicial districts to file with the issuing authority a written agreement indicating the judicial district and magisterial district to which the case should be transferred. For a transfer to occur in cases falling within either (3) or (4), subparagraphs (B)(1)(b)(i) and (ii) require the attorney for the Commonwealth of the judicial district to select the magisterial district to which the case should be transferred. Paragraph (B)(2) requires the issuing authority promptly to transmit a certified copy of all docket entries, all original papers, a copy of the bail bond and any bail deposits, and a bill for uncollected costs to the issuing authority in the transfer magisterial district.
The Comment has been revised to include a citation to Commonwealth v. McPhail, and to provide guidance concerning in which judicial district or magisterial district the proceedings should be brought. The fourth paragraph explains that the decision should be based upon the convenience to the defendant and witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice. The Comment also includes:
(1) a cross-reference to Rule 25 for the procedures to challenge a Rule 21(B) transfer;
(2) a cross-reference to Rule 151 to make it clear that the attorney for the Commonwealth may withdraw the charges as provided in Rule 151;29 and
(3) a cross-reference to Rule 4015 for the authorization to forward the bail deposit, as well as any bail-related costs.
B. New Rule 300 (Transfer of Proceedings)30
New Rule 300 provides the procedures after the charges are held for court in McPhail-type cases
(1) for transferring proceedings that have been instituted in more than one judicial district to one judicial district; or
(2) for transferring proceedings that have been instituted in one judicial district to another judicial district.
See paragraph (A), which sets forth the scope of Rule 300.
Paragraph (B) sets forth the procedures for determining to which judicial district the proceedings should be transferred. The Committee agreed that, in many cases, the determination of the transfer judicial district will be by agreement of the parties, that is, the defendant and the attorneys for the Commonwealth. In these cases, the parties should prepare a written agreement that is filed in the judicial district(s) in which the charges are pending. See paragraph (B)(1).
The Committee also recognized there may be cases in which the attorneys for the Commonwealth will have reached an agreement without seeking input from the defendant, or the defendant and the attorneys for the Commonwealth will not be able to reach an agreement concerning the judicial district in which the case should be heard. In these cases, paragraph (B)(2) provides that the attorneys for the Commonwealth must file a written agreement with the clerk of courts in the judicial district(s) in which the charges are pending. In addition, the rule requires that the agreement be served on the defendant or defendant's attorney, and that the defendant have an opportunity to object to the transfer or to the judicial district selected for the trial.
Paragraphs (C) and (D) provide that the court must promptly order the transfer of the proceedings. Although the Committee agreed that it is within the attorney for the Commonwealth's charging function to decide in which judicial district the charges should be tried, we were concerned that, without an order from the court, the clerk of courts would not transfer the proceedings. Accordingly, the rule provides for the court's order, but the order is not subject to the discretion of the court.
In cases involving the agreement of the attorneys for the Commonwealth, the court is required to wait ten days before ordering the transfer to allow for the defendant's objection, if any. See paragraph (D)(1). When a defendant files an objection, paragraph (D)(2) requires the court to promptly dispose of the objection, and if the objection is denied, immediately order the transfer.
Once an order transferring a proceeding is issued, paragraph (E) directs the clerk of courts of the transferring judicial district(s) to promptly transmit to the clerk of courts of the transfer judicial district all of the following:
(1) a certified copy of all docket entries;
(2) all the original papers filed in the proceeding in the clerk's judicial district;
(3) a copy of the bail bond and any deposits in satisfaction of a monetary condition of bail; and
(4) a bill of the costs that have accrued but have not been collected prior to transfer.
One issue that caused some difficulties for the Committee relates to bail. Several members were concerned that, although paragraph (E) provides that any bail deposits be transmitted to the transfer judicial district, the defendant could be assessed two sets of bail-related costs if the case is instituted in one judicial district and transferred to another judicial district. Agreeing that the defendant should not be assessed these dual costs, the Committee has included as the last paragraph of the Comment an explanation that bail-related costs collected before a proceeding is transferred are not to remain in the transferring judicial district. A new paragraph also has been added to Rule 4015 (Receipt for Deposit; Return of Deposit) requiring that the deposit and all bail-related costs be forwarded to the transfer judicial district. See Rule 4015(E).
Paragraph (F) sets forth the procedures after the case is transferred, noting that the case is to proceed in the same manner as if the proceeding had been instituted in the transfer judicial district. If the case is transferred before an information has been filed, then the charges are to be joined in the same information. See paragraph (F)(1). If the case is transferred after an information has been filed, then the case is to proceed pursuant to Rule 1127, and the informations should be joined for trial.31 See paragraph (F)(2). Paragraph (F)(3) makes it clear that the results of any pretrial proceedings completed in the transferring judicial district are binding on the transfer judicial district. This point is emphasized in the second to last paragraph of the Comment, with a citation to Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326 (Pa. 1995), concerning the coordinate jurisdiction rule and the law of the case doctrine. The last provision of paragraph (F) directs that costs that have not been collected previously are to be collected in the transfer judicial district.
Finally, when the defendant in the case is in custody in a transferring judicial district, paragraph (G) requires that the order transferring the case include a provision for the delivery of the defendant to the custody of the sheriff of the transfer judicial district.
The Committee has included an extensive Comment as an aid to the bench, bar, clerks of courts, and police officers in applying the new procedures. The first three paragraphs of the Comment explain the need for the new rule, and the inter-relationship between Rule 21 and Rule 300. The first paragraph of the Comment also cautions police officers and prosecutors to be vigilant about instituting proceedings and proceeding to trial in cases in which there are multi-judicial district charges arising from a single criminal episode.
The Comment explains that, in determining the judicial district to which the proceedings are to be transferred, ''the parties must consider in which judicial district it would be in the interests of justice to have the case proceed, based upon the convenience of the defendant and the witnesses, and the prompt administration of justice.'' It is further explained that the decision to transfer should be made at the earliest possible time, so that as many of the pretrial proceedings as possible may be conducted in the transfer judicial district. The Comment also explains that the ''court,'' upon receiving an agreement, is to issue a transfer order. ''Court'' is defined as including the president judge, or the judge assigned to handle miscellaneous motions, or the judge assigned to handle the case, whichever applies in the given judicial district.
Lastly, the Comment includes the following cross-references:
(1) Rule 21(A) concerning venue between magisterial districts;
(2) Rules 105, 228, and 1127 concerning joinder of offenses;32
(3) Rule 313 concerning nolle prosequi33 to make it clear that the attorney for the Commonwealth may proceed pursuant to Rule 313 rather than Rule 300;
(4) Rule 4015 for the procedures to forward the bail deposit, and any bail-related costs to the transfer judicial district; and
(5) Rule 9022 (Filing),34 which requires the clerk of courts to docket the agreement and promptly transmit it to such persons as may be designated by the court, to ensure that the clerks of courts understand that Rule 9022 applies in Rule 300 cases.
C. Additional Correlative Changes
(1) Rule 25 (Objections to Venue)
When the Committee agreed that Rule 300(B)(2) should include a provision for the defendant to object to the transfer of the proceedings, we also considered whether it was necessary to include a comparable provision in Rule 21(B). We concluded that this was unnecessary in view of Rule 25. However, some members were concerned, because Rule 25 had been adopted before the addition of the Rule 21(B) transfer provisions, there might be some confusion about the applicability of Rule 25 to a Rule 21(B) transfer. To reduce the likelihood of such confusion, the Committee has added a clarifying statement to the Rule 25 Comment.
(2) Rule 1100 (Prompt Trial)
The final consideration for the Committee concerned the impact of the McPhail procedures on Rule 1100. The Committee noted that, although a defendant's objection to a McPhail transfer is a pretrial motion, these challenges are unique from other omnibus pretrial motions in that the determination of the issue may result in changing the county of prosecution. The members agreed that this unique posture provided justification for different treatment of these challenges within the context of Rule 1100. However, because there continue to be problems with these cases, suggesting a continuing need for rules to provide guidance to the bench and bar about how to proceed, the Committee agreed that we should undertake an in depth review of Rule 1100. Rather than delay the McPhail proposal, we agreed to consider Rule 1100 separately. In the interim, the Committee has included in the Rule 1100 Comment the following cross-reference to recent cases that address pretrial motions in the context of Rule 1100:
For periods of delay that result from the filing and litigation of omnibus pretrial motions for relief or other motions, see Commonwealth v. Hill and Commonwealth v. Cornell, 736 A.2d 578 (Pa. 1999).
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 00-734. Filed for public inspection May 5, 2000, 9:00 a.m.] _______
