Com. v. Carrillo
| Decision Date | 02 January 1979 |
| Citation | 483 Pa. 215,395 A.2d 570 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Adolfo CARRILLO, Appellant (two cases). |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Edward G. Rendell, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Deputy Dist. Atty. for Law, Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals Div., William C. Turnoff, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.
This appeal arises from the judgments of sentence imposed upon appellant, Adolfo Carrillo, in connection with the shooting death of Santiago Garcia.
Appellant was tried by a judge sitting without a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, and was found guilty of murder of the first degree and possession of instruments of crime. Post-verdict motions were denied. On January 12, 1977, appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction and a concurrent two and one-half to five year term of imprisonment on the weapon's conviction.
Appellant appealed the judgment of sentence on the murder conviction to this court and appealed the judgment of sentence imposed upon the weapons conviction to Superior Court, which certified that appeal to this court for disposition.
Initially, appellant raises three issues that are Not properly before this court. The issues, as set forth in appellant's brief, are:
Appellant filed "boilerplate" post-verdict motions twenty-two months after this court's decision in Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975). See Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(a). The motions did not contain any references to the above issues. Appellant, however, filed a brief in support of his post-verdict motions, raising the now proffered arguments. The court below, acting in compliance with this court's decision in Commonwealth v. Blair and Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(a) declined to consider the issues. Of course, there can be no error or abuse of discretion on the part of the court en banc in adhering to this court's decision in Blair and Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(a). See Commonwealth v. McClain, 478 Pa. 10, 385 A.2d 970 (1978).
Appellant next argues that the court below should have found:
1. That the shooting was in self-defense and was, therefore, justifiable homicide.
2. That if not self-defense, then the highest degree of criminal homicide that he should have or could have been found guilty of was voluntary manslaughter.
3. That the fact-finder was required to disbelieve the testimony of two Commonwealth witnesses, Richard and Angel Colon, the decedent's stepsons.
4. That the facts do not sustain a finding of willful, deliberate and premeditated murder.
Appellant's arguments go to the failure of the judge to believe his version of the events rather than the Commonwealth's facts and the judge's failure to discount the testimony of Richard and Angel Colon.
We have reviewed the record in the instant case in light of appellant's specific allegations and also pursuant to our statutorily imposed duty by the Act of February 15, 1870, P.L. 15, § 2, 19 P.S. 1187. We find the evidence sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for murder of the first degree.
Judgments of sentence affirmed.
The majority is being overly technical in a way that I thought had been rejected by this Court. Appellant filed post-verdict motions and requested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Carrillo
...upon his right to appeal, its use of perjured testimony, inadmissible hearsay and an inculpatory statement in proving its case at trial. Id. Additionally, appellant's request, (private) counsel was appointed and filed an amended PCHA petition, which represented in relevant part that: * * * ......
-
Com. v. Gravely
...and refuses to consider issues not raised in written post-verdict motions, the issues are waived on appeal. E. g., Commonwealth v. Carrillo, 483 Pa. 215, 395 A.2d 570 (1978). In a fairly and evenhandedly administered unified judicial system can distinctions properly be made among litigants ......
-
Com. v. Green
...judge expressly declined to address them. 8 These issues have been waived and will not be considered on appeal. Commonwealth v. Carillo, 483 Pa. 215, 395 A.2d 570 (1978); see Commonwealth v. Gravely, 486 Pa. 194, 404 A.2d 1296 The Judgment of Sentence is affirmed. 1 Jurisdiction is vested i......
-
Com. v. Upshur
...had been waived because they were not filed in written post-verdict motions pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123. 2 See Commonwealth v. Carrillo, 483 Pa. 215, 395 A.2d 570 (1978) (post-verdict court properly exercises discretion by refusing to address issues not presented in written post-verdict A......