Steven, here is PA's law:
Title 42:
§ 5552. Other offenses.
(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subchapter, a prosecution for an offense must be commenced
within two years after it is committed.
(Other timelines ommitted/major offenses, etc.)
(c.1) (e) Commencement of prosecution.--Except as otherwise
provided by general rule adopted pursuant to section 5503
(relating to commencement of matters), a prosecution is
commenced either when an indictment is found or an information
under section 8931(b) (relating to indictment and information)
is issued, or when a warrant, summons or citation is issued, if
such warrant, summons or citation is executed without
unreasonable delay.
PA satisfied thier Commencement of prosecution timetable. If the defendant did not show up to answer the citation/pay the fine, it does NOT toll the right to a speedy trial.
At no point during this thread did I doubt the validity of the complaint, and in fact expressed the exact opposite on more than one occasion.
It almost seems as if you think that your opinion of the 6th is held by the SCOTUS carte blanch and is further held state to state high court to high court; this is demonstrably false.
You need case law for the issue I'm discussing, not code. I dont know PA case law and you obviously dont either. Someone does though, and that is this OP needs to talk to.
6th Amendment by ruling is managed case by case and in practice even state to state by interpretation of that states own code, the 6th, and other existing case law - and yes delay can be prejudicial per SCOTUS and at least some states have found it to be presumptively prejudicial after certain periods of time - I'm at a loss at why you are professing an expertise here when you simply dont know for PA and you seem to lack an understanding of the 6th all together.
<i>
When a delay in bringing a defendant to trial after the filing of formal charges has become presumptively prejudicial, and the defendant seeks dismissal of the charges on grounds that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated, the court must balance the relevant factors -- the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and the prejudice to the defendant -- in assessing whether the delay has deprived the defendant of that right. (Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U.S. 514, 530 [33 L.Ed.2d 101, 117].)</i>
That, along with whatever else PA has in their case law, is what can be presented by formal motion. States have a duty to prosecute. Whether you agree or not is not relevent to the motions that can be made by competent legal counsel.
Of course he probably wont, but they come here and its fair to give options and ACCURATE info.
You are ill advising the OP.