Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. WOODS (06/04/70)

decided: June 4, 1970.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
WOODS, APPELLANT



Appeals from order and judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Aug. T., 1964, No. 1291, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Herbert L. Woods.

COUNSEL

Joseph Michael Smith and Fitzpatrick and Smith, for appellant.

Norris Gelman, Assistant District Attorney, James D. Crawford, Deputy District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Concurring Opinion by Spaulding, J. Cercone, J., joins in this opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 216 Pa. Super. Page 361]

In Appeal No. 216, October Term, 1970, the Order is affirmed.

In Appeal No. 242, October Term, 1970, the Judgment of sentence is affirmed.

Disposition

Order and judgment of sentence affirmed.

Concurring Opinion by Spaulding, J.:

Appellant, Herbert Woods, appeals from a conviction on October 1, 1965, in Philadelphia County, for burglary, larceny, and receiving stolen goods. He was arrested July 30, 1964 and was not tried until October 1, 1965. His case was listed for trial and continued several times during that fourteen month interval, with only one continuance at his request.

Appellant contends that he was denied the right to a speedy trial in violation of the Sixth Amendment. I do not agree.

Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967), made the Sixth Amendment right to speedy trial applicable to the States through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (1966), the Court held that while purposeful or oppressive delay is a per se violation, delay due to proper procedural requirements shifts the issue ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.