Case ID: pa_636/html/0229-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

141 A.3d 1275
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent, v. Leon MILLS, Petitioner.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    July 19, 2016.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did not the trial court properly grant [P]etitioner’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, where the time form a scheduling conference to a status listing consisted of time attributable to the conventional progression of a criminal case and was not judicial “delay,” and was therefore correctly included in the calculation of the 365 days in which to bring [Petitioner to trial, and thus where more than 365 days elapsed before [Petitioner was brought to trial?