Commonwealth v. Valle

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Valle

323 A.2d 74, 227 Pa. Super. 191, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2045

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 3, 1974

DocketAppeal, 916

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 323 A.2d 74 (Commonwealth v. Valle) 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. Valle, 323 A.2d 74, 227 Pa. Super. 191, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2045 (Pa. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion by

Watkins, P. J.,

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County by the defendant-appellant, Martin Valle, after conviction by the court below, sitting without a jury, for a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act.

The contention of the appellant is that the evidence was not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the violation of the Uniform Firearms Act, June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, §628, as amended, 18 P.S. §4628(e). The pertinent part of the Act here involved reads: “(e) No person shall carry a firearm in any vehicle . . . without a license therefor. . .

The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth clearly established that the appellant was in possession of the car. The evidence indicates that he was the sole occupant of the car and was seated behind the wheel of the car. He lied to the officer about ownership. When the officer asked him to step from the car, the appellant was able to shut off the motor with the key. As the driver, the appellant was in control and possession of the vehicle including the trunk and as the case in the trunk was unlocked, it is reasonable to infer that he had knowledge of its contents, the weapons, consisting of a loaded .38 revolver and a loaded sawed-off shotgun. Prior to the arrival of the police, the plant foreman had testified that the appellant and two other men had entered the Adams Eug Cleaning Plant after 5 p.m. As he was locking the doors and as the men turned to leave, the foreman noticed a bulge beneath the appellant’s shirt. As the result of this information, the officer pulled the rear seat of the car out and retrieved an unlocked attache case from the trunk. Commonwealth v. Festa, 156 Pa. Superior Ct. 329, 338, 40 A. 2d 112 (1944). See also, Gaylor v. U. S. 426 F. 2d 233 (9th Cir. 1970). The fact that his co-defendant had the key to the case in the [194]*194trunk of tlie car is immaterial as the case was unlocked and clearly in control of the appellant who was in sole possession and control of the vehicle and the trunk.

The appellant also contends that the search was unlawful. However, he failed to litigate a motion to suppress and thus, waived his right to raise this issue on appeal. Rule 323(b), Pa. R. Crim. P.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Watkins, P. J.,

This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County by the defendant-appellant, Martin Valle, after conviction by the court below, sitting without a jury, for a violation of the Uniform Firearms Act.

The contention of the appellant is that the evidence was not sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt of the violation of the Uniform Firearms Act, June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, §628, as amended, 18 P.S. §4628(e). The pertinent part of the Act here involved reads: “(e) No person shall carry a firearm in any vehicle . . . without a license therefor. . .

The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth clearly established that the appellant was in possession of the car. The evidence indicates that he was the sole occupant of the car and was seated behind the wheel of the car. He lied to the officer about ownership. When the officer asked him to step from the car, the appellant was able to shut off the motor with the key. As the driver, the appellant was in control and possession of the vehicle including the trunk and as the case in the trunk was unlocked, it is reasonable to infer that he had knowledge of its contents, the weapons, consisting of a loaded .38 revolver and a loaded sawed-off shotgun. Prior to the arrival of the police, the plant foreman had testified that the appellant and two other men had entered the Adams Eug Cleaning Plant after 5 p.m. As he was locking the doors and as the men turned to leave, the foreman noticed a bulge beneath the appellant’s shirt. As the result of this information, the officer pulled the rear seat of the car out and retrieved an unlocked attache case from the trunk. Commonwealth v. Festa, 156 Pa. Superior Ct. 329, 338, 40 A. 2d 112 (1944). See also, Gaylor v. U. S. 426 F. 2d 233 (9th Cir. 1970). The fact that his co-defendant had the key to the case in the [194]*194trunk of tlie car is immaterial as the case was unlocked and clearly in control of the appellant who was in sole possession and control of the vehicle and the trunk.

The appellant also contends that the search was unlawful. However, he failed to litigate a motion to suppress and thus, waived his right to raise this issue on appeal. Rule 323(b), Pa. R. Crim. P.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 A.2d 74, 227 Pa. Super. 191, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-valle-pasuperct-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack