Commonwealth v. Falls and Sykes
This text of 156 A. 894 (Commonwealth v. Falls and Sykes) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Each of these defendants was found guilty on six indictments, charging respectively, conspiracy, brib *393 ery, extortion, violation of the liquor laws, malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in office.
Separate sentences were imposed on each bill, but only one appeal was taken by each defendant. This was contrary to the decisions of this and the Supreme Court. The sentences imposed constituted separate judgments and there should have been separate appeals: DuBois Appeal, 293 Pa. 186; Com. v. Shollenberger, 17 Pa. Superior Ct. 218; Com. v. Pilnik, 29 Pa. Superior Ct. 285. Defendants’ counsel did not adopt the suggestion that he might elect the one judgment to be reviewed and discontinue the others. We, therefore, are compelled to quash both appeals.
We may, however, state that the one question involved is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the judgments. We are of the opinion, after a careful reading of the testimony, that there was.
Both appeals are quashed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
156 A. 894, 102 Pa. Super. 392, 1931 Pa. Super. LEXIS 185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-falls-and-sykes-pasuperct-1931.