holding that delay was not caused by appellant’s request for a continuance, but resulted from scheduling practices then in effect
How later courts described this case
- holding that delay was not caused by appellant’s request for a continuance, but resulted from scheduling practices then in effect
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Commonwealth v. Lewis, 247 Pa. Super. 46 (1977)
Initially, we note that Coleman is factually distinguishable from the case at bar in that at no time in that case was a timely petition for an extension of time presented to the lower court.
The opinion
CERCONE, Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result in the instant case for the reasons expressed in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Smith, - Pa.Super. -, 361 A.2d 862 (J. 1687/1975).