Commonwealth v. Woods

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a delay of approximately nine months was not a violation of probationer’s right to speedy violation-of-probation hearing
• holding that a delay of approximately nine months was not violation of probationer’s right to speedy violation of probation hearing
• explaining that a court must evaluate the reasonableness of the delay by considering the length of delay, the reasons for delay, and the prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay
• proceeding to prejudice prong where a 9-month delay was not explained
• “Rule 708 does not establish a presumptive period in which the Commonwealth must revoke probation.”
• “The trial court did not order a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement, and no such statement was filed by Appellant. The trial court filed a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion addressing Appellant’s contention that he was denied a speedy VOP hearing.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Wright
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-05-08· cited 95×
• Commonwealth v. Christmas
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-05-26· cited 33×
• Commonwealth v. Lopez, A., Aplt.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-08-16

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Marchesano
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-08-10· cited 46×
• Commonwealth v. Clark
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-04-06· cited 34×
• Commonwealth v. Dickens
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-04-27· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Saunders
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-05-24· cited 13×