Commonwealth v. Wright

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Wright

670 A.2d 193, 447 Pa. Super. 616, 1996 Pa. Super. LEXIS 111

DecidedJanuary 19, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 670 A.2d 193 (Commonwealth v. Wright) 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. Wright, 670 A.2d 193, 447 Pa. Super. 616, 1996 Pa. Super. LEXIS 111 (Pa. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

CIRILLO, Judge:

Robert Wright appeals from the judgment of sentence entered April 7, 1995 in the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County. We affirm.

Following a jury trial, Wright was found guilty of conspiracy to deliver drugs on August 13, 1992. Wright filed post-trial motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial, which were denied.¹ Wright’s appeal raises the following two questions:

[194]*1941. Was hearsay evidence properly admitted at trial to enter the out of court statement of a co-defendant?

2. Was the defendant’s right to due process abridged by the admission of hearsay evidence of [an] out of court statement by a co-defendant?

After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs and the relevant ease law, we conclude that the Hon. Joseph A. NicWeach has properly disposed of these claims in his opinion, a copy of which is attached for purposes of allocatur.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

¹

. These motions were denied on June 22, 1993, and the trial court ordered a pre-sentence report. Wright was sentenced to not less than twenty-one months and not more than forty-two months at the Diagnostic and Classification Center at Pittsburgh at the hearing on April 7, 1995. The record does not reveal why there was a two-year delay in sentencing for this charge, although there is mention of the illness and death of Wright's son in December, 1994. The sentencing [194]*194hearing also related to other charges to which Wright pled guilty. Wright then filed a motion to modify the sentence, which was denied on April 14, 1995.

The determination of guilt, however, occurred on August 13, 1992. Wright's appeal is therefore limited to those issues raised in his post-trial motions, pursuant to former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(c)(3) (rescinded March 22, 1993, effective as to cases in which the determination of guilt occurs on or after January 1, 1994).

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

CIRILLO, Judge:

Robert Wright appeals from the judgment of sentence entered April 7, 1995 in the Court of Common Pleas of Armstrong County. We affirm.

Following a jury trial, Wright was found guilty of conspiracy to deliver drugs on August 13, 1992. Wright filed post-trial motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial, which were denied.¹ Wright’s appeal raises the following two questions:

[194]*1941. Was hearsay evidence properly admitted at trial to enter the out of court statement of a co-defendant?

2. Was the defendant’s right to due process abridged by the admission of hearsay evidence of [an] out of court statement by a co-defendant?

After reviewing the record, the parties’ briefs and the relevant ease law, we conclude that the Hon. Joseph A. NicWeach has properly disposed of these claims in his opinion, a copy of which is attached for purposes of allocatur.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

¹

. These motions were denied on June 22, 1993, and the trial court ordered a pre-sentence report. Wright was sentenced to not less than twenty-one months and not more than forty-two months at the Diagnostic and Classification Center at Pittsburgh at the hearing on April 7, 1995. The record does not reveal why there was a two-year delay in sentencing for this charge, although there is mention of the illness and death of Wright's son in December, 1994. The sentencing [194]*194hearing also related to other charges to which Wright pled guilty. Wright then filed a motion to modify the sentence, which was denied on April 14, 1995.

The determination of guilt, however, occurred on August 13, 1992. Wright's appeal is therefore limited to those issues raised in his post-trial motions, pursuant to former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(c)(3) (rescinded March 22, 1993, effective as to cases in which the determination of guilt occurs on or after January 1, 1994).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

670 A.2d 193, 447 Pa. Super. 616, 1996 Pa. Super. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-wright-pasuperct-1996.