Commonwealth v. Cox
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
PRICE, Judge:
This Commonwealth appeal presents the question of whether the tendering of a guilty plea (eventually refused by the trial court) and concomitant ordering of a presentence report reflects a commitment of time and resources by the trial court so as to signify the “commencement of trial” for Rule 1100 1 purposes. We hold that trial in the instant case did not commence for purposes of the rule, and consequently, appellee was entitled to discharge.
The pertinent facts are as follows. On February 18, 1978, a criminal complaint was filed against appellee charging him with homicide by…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LamonnaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. BoyleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. ByrdSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. GriffinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- United States v. Anthony Campisi, Peter S. Campisi, Peter A. Campisi, Carman Charles Campisi. Appeal of Peter A. CampisiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1978
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. LewisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. BythewaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Commonwealth v. WhittallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. SchmoyerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Commonwealth v. DiSantisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.