Com. v. Duff
| Decision Date | 27 May 1964 |
| Citation | 200 A.2d 773,414 Pa. 471 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Nathaniel DUFF, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Thomas M. Reed, Asst. Dist. Atty., F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before BELL, C. J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
On February 24, 1959, the defendant, Nathaniel Duff, entered pleas of guilty in the Quarter Sessions Court of Philadelphia County, before the Honorable Earl Chudoff, a judge of that court, to six separate bills of indictment charging criminal abortion, and two bills charging conspiracy to commit an abortion. He was placed on probation for a period of twenty-three months on one of the bills charging abortion, and sentence was suspended on all others.
On January 24, 1961, the probationary period imposed expired, and the probation department terminated supervision.
In June 1961, the defendant was indicted in the same court for abortion allegedly committed on August 30, 1960.
On January 4, 1963, after trial before the Honorable David L. Ullman, sitting without a jury, the defendant was convicted on the indictment charging abortion in 1960, and was placed on probation for a period of three years.
On January 18, 1963, Judge Chudoff, after hearing, 'vacated' the suspended sentences imposed on February 24, 1959, on five bills of indictment charging abortion, and imposed a prison sentence in each case of eighteen months to three years, the sentences to run concurrently.
The defendant appealed to the Superior Court from the judgments of sentence. That distinguished court in a four to three decision affirmed, but learned opinions filed by three individual members thereof manifest sharp conflict as to the import of the action of a court in suspending sentence.
It is common knowledge that, the courts of quarter sessions and oyer and terminer of this Commonwealth have for decades followed the practice of 'suspending sentence' upon defendants convicted of crime, without providing probation for a fixed period of time. While legal minds have differed as to the finality of such action, this Court, on at least two occasions, in the form of dicta has recognized the inherent power of the trial court to suspend sentence indefinitely and to later impose sentence. Com. ex rel. Wilhelm v. Morgan, 278 Pa. 395, 123 A. 337 (1924), and Com. ex rel. McGinnis v. Ashe, 330 Pa. 289, 199 A. 185 (1938). Notwithstanding, it appears clear to us, that by the passage of the Acts of June 19, 1911, P.L. 1055 § 1, 19 P.S. § 1051, and August 6, 1941, P.L. 861, 61 P.S. § 331.25, the legislature manifested a mandate to the courts, that where no sentence is imposed, the defendant should be placed on probation for a fixed period of time, not to exceed the maximum period of imprisonment allowed by law for the particular offense.
It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Simmons
...111 N.E.2d 233 (1953) (sentence must be imposed within two days of verdict absent sufficient cause for delay); Commonwealth v. Duff, 414 Pa. 471, 473-474, 200 A.2d 773 (1964) (delaying imposition of sentence not allowed as probationary alternative; fixed period of probation is required). 11......
-
Com. v. Sawicki
...654--655, 193 A.2d 657 (1963); Commonwealth v. Duff, 201 Pa.Super. 387, 393--396, 192 A.2d 258 (1963), rev'd on other grounds, 414 Pa. 471, 200 A.2d 773 (1964). See also State v. Davis, 56 Wash.2d 729, 355 P.2d 344 (1960). A Federal court has power to issue a warrant after the close of the ......
-
United States v. Cavell
...rape; No. 1169 — Rape. Sentence was suspended on No. 1168, and may not now be vacated and sentence imposed. See Commonwealth v. Duff, 414 Pa. 471, 200 A.2d 773 (1964). Commonwealth v. Garrett, 423 Pa. 8, 222 A.2d 902 2 The judges of the Courts of Common Pleas selected from the voter's list ......
-
Com. v. Goldhammer
...now provides for limited review of the discretionary aspects of a sentence. Mr. Goldhammer was sentenced in 1981.3 In Commonwealth v. Duff, 414 Pa. 471, 200 A.2d 773 (1964), this Court held that an imposition of a suspended sentence represented an exhaustion of the sentencing power and woul......