Commonwealth v. Robbins

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Commonwealth is not required to inform the court of an imminent run date violation and the failure to do so is not dispositive in a due diligence analysis
• holding that our scope of review of a Rule 600 ruling is limited to the evidence on the record of the Rule 600 evidentiary hearing and the findings of the trial court
• holding “severance is not required of the Commonwealth when it faces a possible Rule 600 violation, and the trial court should not [] factor[] the refusal to sever in its Rule 600 analysis”
• stating, the Commonwealth is not required to sever cases even when faced with a possible Rule 600 violation
• stating, the Commonwealth is not required to sever cases even when faced with a possible Rule 600 violation
• “[S]everance is not required of the Commonwealth when it faces a possible Rule 600 violation, and the trial court should not have factored the refusal to sever in its Rule 600 analysis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).