Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Colon

Citations

  • 87 A.3d 352
  • 2014 Pa. Super. 45
  • 2014 WL 895216
  • 2014 Pa. Super. LEXIS 120

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding a constitutional claim of violation of speedy trial rights is separate from a Rule 600 issue
  • holding that Rule 600 “was adopted to protect defendant’s constitutional rights to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment [to] the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution” (internal quotation marks omitted)
  • stating that it is the Commonwealth that has the burden of demonstrating it exercised due diligence in bringing the defendant to trial on time
  • stating, “[a] speedy trial analysis thus mandates a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the delay violated [Rule 600]; and, if not, then (2
  • stating “[t]he Commonwealth must do everything reasonable within its power to guarantee that a trial begins on time[.]” (emphasis added, citation omitted)
  • noting Pennsylvania adopted the predecessor to Rule 600 to provide clearer administration and enforcement of a defendant’s speedy trial rights than the “amorphous” test formulated in Barker

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Allen, Stabile, Strassburger

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

20 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.