Commonwealth v. Shoemaker

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Shoemaker

341 A.2d 111, 462 Pa. 342, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 889

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 7, 1975

Docket542

StatusPublished

Cited by37 cases

This text of 341 A.2d 111 (Commonwealth v. Shoemaker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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. Shoemaker, 341 A.2d 111, 462 Pa. 342, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 889 (Pa. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

We granted appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal from the order of the Superior Court to determine whether, under the procedure established by the Act of December 22, 1965, P.L. 1187, § 1, 19 P.S. § 890 (Supp. 1974), a sentencing court may, in imposing sentence, consider a defendant’s arrest record which does not indicate the disposition resulting from the arrests. Our review of the record, however, discloses that this issue was not preserved for appellate review by a timely objection *344 in the sentencing court. We will not, therefore, consider appellant’s claim. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 36 n. 3, 331 A.2d 213, 215 n. 3 (1975); Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Pa. 253, 261, 328 A.2d 507, 511 (1974); Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974). On this record the order of the Superior Court must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

NIX, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

We granted appellant’s petition for allowance of appeal from the order of the Superior Court to determine whether, under the procedure established by the Act of December 22, 1965, P.L. 1187, § 1, 19 P.S. § 890 (Supp. 1974), a sentencing court may, in imposing sentence, consider a defendant’s arrest record which does not indicate the disposition resulting from the arrests. Our review of the record, however, discloses that this issue was not preserved for appellate review by a timely objection *344 in the sentencing court. We will not, therefore, consider appellant’s claim. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 36 n. 3, 331 A.2d 213, 215 n. 3 (1975); Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Pa. 253, 261, 328 A.2d 507, 511 (1974); Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974). On this record the order of the Superior Court must be affirmed.

Order affirmed.

NIX, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

341 A.2d 111, 462 Pa. 342, 1975 Pa. LEXIS 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-shoemaker-pa-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack