Commonwealth v. Palmer

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Palmer

292 A.2d 428, 221 Pa. Super. 439, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1551

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 16, 1972

DocketAppeal, No. 1221

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 292 A.2d 428 (Commonwealth v. Palmer) 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. Palmer, 292 A.2d 428, 221 Pa. Super. 439, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1551 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of narcotic drugs, a violation of The Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. Act of September 26, 1961, P. L. 1664, §1 et seq., 35 P.S. 780-1-31. Although appellant was not indicted as a second offender, he was sentenced as such to two to seven years imprisonment. Appellant has appealed from the judgment of sentence.

On April 13, 1972, appellant’s attorney filed a petition with this Court informing the Court that appellant died on April 3, 1972. This petition, which was joined in by the District Attorney’s Office of the City and County of Philadelphia, requested our Court to decide appellant’s case “[b]ecause of the vital legal issues involved.”

[441]*441Appellant’s attorney contends that we should decide this appeal under the authority of Commonwealth v. Walker, 447 Pa. 146, 288 A. 2d 741 (1972). In Walker our Supreme Court indicated that where an appellant has died prior to a final appellate determination of his rights, “it is in the interest of both a defendant’s estate and society that any challenge initiated by a defendant to the regularity or constitutionality of a criminal proceeding be fully reviewed and decided by the appellate process.”

After careful review of the record in this case, however, we do not believe that Walker would support the continuation of appellant’s appeal. Where an appellant challenges the validity of his conviction, there is no question that the appellant has substantial individual interests which would survive his death. In the instant case appellant has raised no arguably meritorious substantive claims, his primary contention being that he was improperly sentenced. In these circumstances appellant’s interests go no further than the sentence which he received. It would be inappropriate, therefore, for our Court to decide the sentencing question in this case.

Appeal dismissed.

Jacobs, J., concurs in the result.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of narcotic drugs, a violation of The Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. Act of September 26, 1961, P. L. 1664, §1 et seq., 35 P.S. 780-1-31. Although appellant was not indicted as a second offender, he was sentenced as such to two to seven years imprisonment. Appellant has appealed from the judgment of sentence.

On April 13, 1972, appellant’s attorney filed a petition with this Court informing the Court that appellant died on April 3, 1972. This petition, which was joined in by the District Attorney’s Office of the City and County of Philadelphia, requested our Court to decide appellant’s case “[b]ecause of the vital legal issues involved.”

[441]*441Appellant’s attorney contends that we should decide this appeal under the authority of Commonwealth v. Walker, 447 Pa. 146, 288 A. 2d 741 (1972). In Walker our Supreme Court indicated that where an appellant has died prior to a final appellate determination of his rights, “it is in the interest of both a defendant’s estate and society that any challenge initiated by a defendant to the regularity or constitutionality of a criminal proceeding be fully reviewed and decided by the appellate process.”

After careful review of the record in this case, however, we do not believe that Walker would support the continuation of appellant’s appeal. Where an appellant challenges the validity of his conviction, there is no question that the appellant has substantial individual interests which would survive his death. In the instant case appellant has raised no arguably meritorious substantive claims, his primary contention being that he was improperly sentenced. In these circumstances appellant’s interests go no further than the sentence which he received. It would be inappropriate, therefore, for our Court to decide the sentencing question in this case.

Appeal dismissed.

Jacobs, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.2d 428, 221 Pa. Super. 439, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-palmer-pasuperct-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack