Commonwealth v. Akridge

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Akridge

422 A.2d 487, 492 Pa. 90, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 887

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 19, 1980

Docket126 E.D. Misc.Dkt. 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 422 A.2d 487 (Commonwealth v. Akridge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Akridge, 422 A.2d 487, 492 Pa. 90, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 887 (Pa. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

*91 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This matter comes before us on petitioner’s petition for allowance of appeal from the Superior Court’s order remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether or not the Commonwealth, at two prior hearings on Commonwealth’s petitions for extension of time under Pa.R. Crim.P. 1100, had sufficient evidence to establish its “due diligence” requirement under that rule, Commonwealth v. Akridge, 275 Pa.Super.-, 419 A.2d 18 (1980).

In our view, such a remand for a “second bite” of the Commonwealth’s evidentiary burden on the “due diligence” requirement of Rule 1100 is in contradiction to the mandates we set forth in Commonwealth v. Ehredt, 485 Pa. 191, 401 A.2d 358 (1979).

We therefore grant the petition for allowance of appeal and reverse the order of the Superior Court with directions that petitioner be discharged.

LARSEN, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI