Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Brown

Citations

  • 875 A.2d 1128
  • 2005 Pa. Super. 180
  • 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1284

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • concluding that there are no formal requirements for a Rule 600 waiver if the record indicates it was an informed and voluntary decision of the (Footnote Continued Next Page
  • holding that, under Rule 600, excludable time includes the unavailability of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, as well as any continuance granted at the request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney
  • stating that the time taken by the court to decide a Rule 600 motion “renders the time excludable”
  • “[T]o obtain relief, a defendant must have a valid Rule 600 claim at the time he files his motion to dismiss the charges.”
  • where trial judge was involved in another trial, the delay attributed thereto constituted “excusable time”
  • where “the trial court had yet another trial in progress, and rescheduled Appellee’s trial” it was a circumstance over which “the Commonwealth had no control” and so the delay “is excusable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Stevens, Gantman, Kelly

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.