Commonwealth v. Caden
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
SPAETH, Judge:
This appeal is from a judgment of sentence for risking a catastrophe and conspiracy. Appellant argues that the Commonwealth failed to establish its due diligence in bringing him to trial within the period prescribed by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100, and also, that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of risking a catastrophe. We have concluded that the Commonwealth did not comply with Rule 1100, and that appellant must therefore be discharged. This conclusion makes it unnecessary to address appellant’s second argument.
On November 20, 1980, appellant was brought to trial,…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SheltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. MayfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. MyrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. EhredtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ThompsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
- Commonwealth v. ManningSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
- Commonwealth v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Commonwealth v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999