Commonwealth v. Diaz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that discharge is not warranted under Rule 704 where defendant’s - 11 - J. S91005/16 claim of prejudice is speculative
• reiterating that the underpinning of Rule 704 is to protect the accused from inexcusable or intentional delay on the part of the court or the Commonwealth, “the ‘whim’ or power of the state.” (citation omitted)
• accord, but weaving in an abuse-of-discretion standard of review as to the fashioning of the defendant's sentence
• construing Pa.R.Crim.P. 1405, which was replaced by Rule 704

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Commonwealth v. Neysmith
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2018-06-28· cited 48×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Prisk
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-01-28· cited 268×
• Commonwealth v. Anders
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-02-18· cited 64×
• Sakon v. Town of Glastonbury
  Connecticut Appellate Court· 2008-11-18· cited 15×
• Commonwealth v. Dickens
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-04-27· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Fox
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-07-07· cited 10×
• Commonwealth v. McLean
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-02-18· cited 6×
• Commonwealth v. Thompson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-10-31· cited 3×
• Commonwealth v. Andrews
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-02-27· cited 3×