COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE PAUL BURKETT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. WAYNE PAUL BURKETT No. 1159 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 182 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/30/2010
	Appeal from the Order Entered March 27, 2009, in the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County, Criminal Division, at No: 1982-284, CP-07-CR-0000284-1982, No. 82 CR 284.
Before: BOWES, ALLEN, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Wayne Paul Burkett appeals from the order entered in the Blair County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his first PCRA petition sixteen years after he filed that petition. After careful review, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY BERNARDLY JONES

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. ANTHONY BERNARDLY JONES No. 1916 WDA 2009 2010 PA Super 140 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 8/4/2010
	Appeal from the PCRA Order July 24, 2009 In the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at Nos. CR-0000287-02 and CP-48-CR-0003796-2002
Before: OTT, J., McEWEN, P.J.E., AND CLELAND*, J.
Opinion by: CLELAND, J.
Appellant, Anthony Bernardly Jones (Jones), appeals the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County denying his petition filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9541-46 (PCRA). Jones argues the sentencing court erred in not merging two sentences imposed as result of two convictions for violating 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105. Because the doctrine of merger is not implicated here, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RUSSELL WOODS

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RUSSELL WOODS No. 2711 eda 2007 2009 PA Super 19 Atlantic: 965 A.2d 1225 Filed: 2/4/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence September 17, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal at No(s): CP-51-CR-0810251-2004
Before: STEVENS, KLEIN, and CLELAND, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County following the revocation of Appellant’s probation. Appellant’s sole contention is that he was denied his right to a speedy violation of probation (VOP) hearing pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 708. We affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 6/2/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TAMOSEN STATEN

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TAMOSEN STATEN
No. 2094 EDA 2006 2008 PA Super 118 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 6/2/2008
Appeal from the Order July 7, 2006In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia CountyCriminal at No(s): M.C.# 05-09-3174
Before: STEVENS, DONOHUE, and FITZGERALD, JJ.
Opinion by: STEVENS, J.
This is an appeal from an order that denied Appellant’s petition to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for a writ of certiorari. Appellant contends the Court of Common Pleas erred in denying his writ and motion for discharge based on the Commonwealth’s alleged violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 1013, Prompt Trial—Municipal Court, because his Municipal Court trial commenced eight days beyond the 180 day Mechanical Run Date. As the record reveals the eight day overrun occurred despite both the Commonwealth’s due diligence in bringing Appellant to trial in compliance with to Rule 1013 and the court’s rescheduling trial for the earliest possible date, we affirm.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here

Superior Court 5/1/08 - COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICKI LEE BOOZE

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RICKI LEE BOOZE
No. 1072 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 92 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/1/2008
Appeal from the Order in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Criminal Division, No(s): 227 of 2007
Before: LALLY-GREEN, PANELLA and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: TAMILIA, J.
Concurring Statement by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
The Commonwealth appeals the May 29, 2007, Order dismissing the charges against appellee Ricki Lee Booze on the basis of a violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, Prompt Trial. After thorough and careful consideration, we affirm.


Rule 600(A) makes clear that the mechanical run date comes 365 days after the filing of the complaint. This Court then calculates the adjusted run date according to 600(C). The adjusted run date is calculated by omitting certain times proscribed by 600(C), “excludable time,” from the calculation of the run date.

Pursuant to Rule 600(A) and (C), we calculate
the mechanical and adjusted run dates as follows:
The mechanical run date is the date by which the
trial must commence under [Rule 600]. It is
calculated by adding 365 days (the time for
commencing trial under [Rule 600]) to the date on
which the criminal complaint is filed. As discussed
herein, the mechanical run date can be modified or
extended by adding to the date any periods of time
in which delay is caused by the defendant. Once the
mechanical run date is modified accordingly, it then
becomes an adjusted run date.