Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Watson

Citations

  • 140 A.3d 696
  • 2016 Pa. Super. 111
  • 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 294
  • 2016 WL 3036617

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that Pennsylvania case law suggests that the Commonwealth may not be held accountable for delay caused by defense continuances
  • explaining Rule 600 and noting that defense continuances could not be attributed to the Commonwealth and properly constituted excludable time
  • explaining Rule 600 and noting that defense continuances could not be attributed to the Commonwealth and properly constituted excludable time
  • “Addressing [Watson’s] claim of trial court error first, we observe that he directs us to no authority, and we are aware of none, to support his contention that counsel must obtain a defendant’s permission prior to requesting a continuance.” (footnote omitted)
  • “[W]e observe that [the defendant] directs us to no authority, and we are aware of none, to support his contention that counsel must obtain a defendant’s permission prior to requesting a continuance.”
  • “[Watson] fails to develop any argument, let alone one substantiated by authority, to advance the theory that the Commonwealth may be held accountable for delay caused by defense continuances. Our jurisprudence has suggested the opposite.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Mundy, Dubow, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 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.