Graham v. Tillison

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).