Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Fisher

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 29, 1980No. 3029PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROBERTS, Judge:

Four hundred forty-four days after filing the complaint, the Commonwealth brought appellant Nathan Fisher to trial. At issue is whether trial was timely under the 180 day rule of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(a)(2). It is agreed that 193 days are excludible under Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(d)(1) because during that time the trial court found appellant incompetent to stand trial. For 212 days, however, the court adjudged appellant competent to stand trial, but committed appellant *372to a mental health care facility for treatment. We must decide whether the period during which appellant was competent…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. EhredtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Commonwealth v. McQuaidSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Commonwealth v. QuinlanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Commonwealth v. StickleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. BellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Commonwealth v. CadenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  3. Commonwealth v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Commonwealth v. ArmsteadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Commonwealth v. BankstonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API