Com. v. Kumitis
Decision Date | 10 June 1959 |
Citation | 151 A.2d 653,190 Pa.Super. 133 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Albert A. KUMITIS, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Albert Kumitis, in pro. per.
Paul r. Beckert, Dist. Atty., Ward F. Clark, Asst. Dist. Atty., Doylestown, for appellee.
Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN and WATKINS, JJ.
These appeals are from the judgments and sentences of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The defendant, Albert A. Kumitis, was tried under two bills of indictment charging larceny, receiving stolen goods, burglary and conspiracy; was convicted by the jury of larceny, burglary and conspiracy; and was sentenced to 7 1/2 to 15 years on each indictment; the sentences to run concurrently.
These appeals complain of the dismissal by the court below of a rule to show cause why the notes of testimony should not be corrected and the denial of motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial. President Judge Edward G. Biester, the trial judge, in support of the court's action, filed a careful opinion in each matter disposing of the many objections raised by the defendant.
A reading of the letters of this defendant to the trial judge, which were made a part of the record, as well as an examination of his brief, disclose a course of conduct toward the court that was clearly disrespectful and impertinent. Despite this attitude by the defendant, Judge Biester patiently and painstakingly disposed of every question he raised and the record clearly shows that this defendant, represented by able counsel, had a fair trial in which the judge leaned over backwards to protect his rights under the law. This was so apparent in this record that what we said in Com. v. Helwig, 1957, 184 Pa.Super. 370, at page 379, 134 A.2d 694, at page 698, in reference to the trial judge in that case, is equally well applicable to Judge Biester here:
'We must commend the patience of the trial judge in this case and agree wholeheartedly with his opinion where it states, 'Although the courts are and should be concerned that the rights of a defendant charged with crime be fully protected, nevertheless society should also be protected against what we believe to have been in this case unjustifiable and malicious effort to thwart justice and orderly judicial procedure', * * * Judge Woodside of this Court, in an address before the Pennsylvania Bar Association, aptly summed it up when he said, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Coyle
...v. Deppen, 52 Pa.Dist. & Co.R. 442 (1944); Commonwealth v. Halleron, 163 Pa.Super. 583, 63 A.2d 140 (1949); Commonwealth v. Kumitis, 190 Pa.Super. 133, 151 A.2d 653 (1959); and, Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S.Ct. 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 The next assignment of error contends that a......
- Pore v. Pore
-
Commonwealth v. Sliva
... ... felonious taking of money in an amount either greater or less ... than averred in the indictment will sustain a conviction ... Com. v. Dingman, 1904, [193 Pa.Super. 494] 26 ... pa.Super. 615; Com. v. Haimbach, 1943, 151 Pa.Super ... 581, 30 A.2d 653; Com. v. Kumitis, 1959, 190 ... ...