Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Colon

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 29, 1983No. 2727Published

1DissentSpaeth, Judge

I believe that appellant should be discharged because the Commonwealth failed to exercise due diligence to bring him to trial within the period specified by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100.

-1-

In addressing the Commonwealth’s argument that the appeal should be quashed for noncompliance with Pa.R. App.P. 2111(a), the majority states, “Had we not availed ourselves of the Commonwealth’s brief and the. record of the post-verdict motions hearing in the trial court, we would be unable to determine what appellant’s Rule 1100 argument is.” At 417. I disagree. It is true that, instead of using the heading,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Commonwealth v. MayfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Commonwealth v. EhredtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Commonwealth v. AntonuccioSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Commonwealth v. KovacsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977

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