Commonwealth v. Fields

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Fields

380 A.2d 491, 251 Pa. Super. 287, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2917

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 2, 1977

DocketNo. 936

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 380 A.2d 491 (Commonwealth v. Fields) 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.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Fields, 380 A.2d 491, 251 Pa. Super. 287, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2917 (Pa. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was sentenced after his. conviction of burglary and conspiracy. Boiler plate post-verdict motions were filed by appellant and denied by the court below.

The first issue raised by the appellant is whether the lower court erroneously allowed into, evidence a hearsay statement made by appellant’s co-conspirator. This issue was not raised, however, in post-verdict motions and is, therefore, not properly preserved for our consideration. Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975); Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974). Appellant also argues that the lower court unfairly considered arrests that did not lead to convictions in sentencing appellant. Our review of the record, however, discloses that this issue was likewise not preserved for appellate review since no timely objection was made in the sentencing court. We will not, therefore, consider this claim. Commonwealth v. Shoemaker, 462 Pa. 342, 341 A.2d 111 (1975).

Having found that all the appellant’s claims were waived, the judgment of sentence is accordingly affirmed.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion, in which CER-CONE, J., joins.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant was sentenced after his. conviction of burglary and conspiracy. Boiler plate post-verdict motions were filed by appellant and denied by the court below.

The first issue raised by the appellant is whether the lower court erroneously allowed into, evidence a hearsay statement made by appellant’s co-conspirator. This issue was not raised, however, in post-verdict motions and is, therefore, not properly preserved for our consideration. Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975); Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974). Appellant also argues that the lower court unfairly considered arrests that did not lead to convictions in sentencing appellant. Our review of the record, however, discloses that this issue was likewise not preserved for appellate review since no timely objection was made in the sentencing court. We will not, therefore, consider this claim. Commonwealth v. Shoemaker, 462 Pa. 342, 341 A.2d 111 (1975).

Having found that all the appellant’s claims were waived, the judgment of sentence is accordingly affirmed.

SPAETH, J., files a dissenting opinion, in which CER-CONE, J., joins.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

380 A.2d 491, 251 Pa. Super. 287, 1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-fields-pasuperct-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack