Commonwealth v. Selenski

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Selenski

937 A.2d 445, 594 Pa. 713

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 27, 2007

Docket412 MAL 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 937 A.2d 445 (Commonwealth v. Selenski) 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. Selenski, 937 A.2d 445, 594 Pa. 713 (Pa. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent
v.
HUGO MARCUS SELENSKI, Petitioner.

No. 412 MAL 2007

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District

November 27, 2007

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Discuss whether the Superior Court was correct in concluding that "the Commonwealth exercised due diligence and that the circumstances occasioning the postponement were beyond the control of the Commonwealth" within the meaning of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(G).

(2) Discuss whether the Superior Court applied the proper standard of review and the proper scope of review in reviewing the trial court's order granting Petitioner's motion to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent
v.
HUGO MARCUS SELENSKI, Petitioner.

No. 412 MAL 2007

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District

November 27, 2007

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:

(1) Discuss whether the Superior Court was correct in concluding that "the Commonwealth exercised due diligence and that the circumstances occasioning the postponement were beyond the control of the Commonwealth" within the meaning of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(G).

(2) Discuss whether the Superior Court applied the proper standard of review and the proper scope of review in reviewing the trial court's order granting Petitioner's motion to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

937 A.2d 445, 594 Pa. 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-selenski-pa-2007.

Opinion

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent v. HUGO MARCUS SELENSKI, Petitioner.

ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent
v.
HUGO MARCUS SELENSKI, Petitioner.