In the Interest of Pendarvis

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that appellant was not prejudiced by transfer of venue from Allegheny to Westmoreland County, because they are adjoining counties, and \the burdens associated with traveling to the other venue are minimal\
• stating that Rule 600 excludes time where “the defendant could not be apprehended because his or her whereabouts were unknown and could not be determined by due diligence[]”
• finding sufficient nexus between Allegheny County and criminal activity, even though robbery at issue took place in Westmoreland County, where car used in robbery was stolen from Allegheny County and later abandoned there
• addressing Rule 600 and speedy trial claims separately and under different standards
• “Thus even assuming venue was improper, Appellant must demonstrate prejudice in order to be entitled to relief at least ... where the choice of venue is purely procedural and not jurisdictional in nature,
• “Apart from Appellant’s role in these crimes, the vehicle stolen on July 31, 2004, provided the only link to the instant case; however, even that link is dubious.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).