The Pennsylvania Superior Court, however, reversed. Commonwealth v. Sadler, 301 Pa. Super. 228, 447 A.2d 625 (1982). Relying on the fact that the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure are not applicable to juvenile proceedings, as well as its decision in Commonwealth v. Bell, 245 Pa. Super. 164, 369 A.2d 345 (1976), aff'd mem., 481 Pa. 229, 392 A.2d 691 (1978), the Superior Court held that the Rule 1100 period did not begin to run for Sadler until January 8, 1979, the date of his certification and transfer to criminal court. 301 Pa.Super. at 231-232, 447 A.2d at 626.

¶ 7 The Commonwealth asserts there is no judicially recognized right to a speedy trial in juvenile proceedings and is correct in that, to date, both the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts and the United States Supreme Court have remained silent with respect to the issue of whether juveniles have the right to speedy trials. Commonwealth v. Sadler, 447 A.2d 625 (Pa.Super. 1984); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 424 A.2d 897, 900 (Pa.Super. 1981). However, these same courts have not been silent with respect to the applicability of 14th Amendment due process rights to juveniles in delinquency proceedings.

Neither it nor § 6355(f) precludes a judge from making a different decision regarding the same defendant in a different case. In Commonwealth v. Sadler, 301 Pa. Super. 228, 447 A.2d 625 (1982), we addressed the identical issue now before us. In Sadler, the defendant was charged with two unrelated robberies.

Further, "[i]t is well settled that the particular terms of Rule 1100 `are neither directly granted by nor required by the Constitution.'" Commonwealth v.Sadler, 301 Pa. Super. 228, 232, 447 A.2d 625, 627 (1982) (quoting Commonwealth v. Myrick, 468 Pa. 155, 161, 360 A.2d 598, 600 (1976)). Thus, to the extent that Rule 1100(e) is in conflict with our state constitution concerning defendants charged with capital offenses, we find that Rule 1100(e) must give way.

Matter of Welfare of Hartung, 304 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 1981); In Interest of White, 227 Kan. 881, 610 P.2d 1114 (1980); Commonwealth v. Sadler, 301 Pa. Super. 228, 447 A.2d 625 (Pa.Super. 1982). We agree with the reasoning of those courts.

On settled principle, the period during which the trial court decided appellant's pre-trial motion and the period during which we decided her petition for leave to appeal are both excludable, and when these periods are excluded, it will be seen that appellant was timely tried. Rule 1100 is not required by the provision in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution that an accused has a right to a speedy trial, Commonwealth v. Sadler, 301 Pa. Super. 228, 232, 447 A.2d 625, 627 (1982), but it is intended to implement and give substance to that provision. Jones v. Commonwealth, 495 Pa. 490, 499, 434 A.2d 1197, 1201 (1981); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 283 Pa. Super. 455, 461, 424 A.2d 897, 900, cert. denied subnom.

Pa.R.Crim.P. 1(a). See: Commonwealth v. Sadler, 301 Pa. Super. 228, 233-234, 447 A.2d 625, 627-628 (1982); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 287 Pa. Super. 430, 430 A.2d 680 (1981); Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 283 Pa. Super. 455, 460-461, 424 A.2d 897, 900 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 851, 102 S.Ct. 292, 70 L.Ed.2d 141; Commonwealth v.Bell, 245 Pa. Super. 164, 166, 369 A.2d 345, 346 (1976), aff'd, 481 Pa. 229, 392 A.2d 691 (1978). Due process and equal protection arguments have been made with respect to the inapplicability of Rule 1100 to juvenile proceedings and have been rejected.

These policy considerations must also be concerned with the kind of evidence the court may consider upon a rehearing for transfer. Should the hearing be limited to evidence relating only to circumstances or events occurring before the original hearing? Several cases have held that because of perceived reasons for juvenile codes and their provisions to permit transfer to district court for trial of a juvenile as an adult, the evidence to be considered may be that existing at the time of the latest transfer hearing, in addition to that produced at the earlier hearing. Matter of Welfare of Hartung, 304 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. 1981); In Interest of White, 227 Kan. 881, 610 P.2d 1114 (1980); Commonwealth v. Sadler, 301 Pa. Super. 228, 447 A.2d 625 (Pa.Super. 1982). We agree with the reasoning of those courts.

The Commonwealth's argument rests upon our April 3, 1981 decision in Commonwealth v. Sadler. However, this Court subsequently granted reconsideration in Sadler, see ___ Pa.Super. ___, 447 A.2d 625 (1982), thereby abrogating its requirement that certification issues must be raised in pre-trial motions. Absent new evidence, a trial court may not in pre-trial motions review a juvenile court's decision to certify a juvenile to criminal court. Commonwealth v. Brown, 485 Pa. 368, 402 A.2d 1007 (1979).