Commonwealth v. Mills, L.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Mills, L.

141 A.3d 1275, 636 Pa. 229, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 1520

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided July 19, 2016·No. 124 EAL 2016 (Granted)·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did not the trial court properly grant [P]etitioner’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, where the time form a scheduling conference to a status listing consisted of time attributable to the conventional progression of a criminal case and was not judicial “delay,” and was therefore correctly included in the calculation of the 365 days in which to bring [Petitioner to trial, and thus where more than 365 days elapsed before [Petitioner was brought to trial?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did not the trial court properly grant [P]etitioner’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, where the time form a scheduling conference to a status listing consisted of time attributable to the conventional progression of a criminal case and was not judicial “delay,” and was therefore correctly included in the calculation of the 365 days in which to bring [Petitioner to trial, and thus where more than 365 days elapsed before [Petitioner was brought to trial?

Commonwealth v. Mills, L., 141 A.3d 1275, 636 Pa. 229, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 1520 (Pa. 2016).

Pincite

141 A.3d 1275 (Commonwealth v. Mills, L.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related