Commonwealth v. Krall
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
HOFFMAN, Judge:
Appellant contends that the lower court erred when it granted the Commonwealth’s petition to extend the period in which to try the appellant pursuant to Rule 1100(c), Pa.R.Crim.P., 19 P.S. Appendix. 1 The only allegation of due diligence in the Commonwealth’s petition was that “. a trial cannot commence within the required period because [t]his case could not be tried during the May, 1975 Session of Court.” Although in its order extending the period the court refers to a hearing on the petition, there are no notes of testimony in the record. In a similar situation, we remanded…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MayfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. TomeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
3Cited by13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. MillerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. LeeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. MyersSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. FerebeeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Commonwealth v. GardnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.