Com. v. Reeves
Decision Date | 10 December 1970 |
Citation | 272 A.2d 197,218 Pa.Super. 88 |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Charles REEVES, Appellant. |
Daniel C. Barrish, Norristown, for appellant.
Milton O. Moss, Dist. Atty., Parker H. Wilson, 1st. Asst. Dist. Atty., Stuart J. Greenleaf, Asst. Dist. Atty., Chief, Appeals Div., Norristown, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.
WRIGHT, President Junde.
Charles L. Reeves was indicted by the Grand Jury in Montgomery County on charges, inter alia, of burglary and robbery. After a jury trial before Judge Toothman, specially presiding, Reeves was convicted and sentence was imposed. This appeal followed. The factual situation appears in the following excerpt from the opinion below:
.
Five contentions are advanced in appellant's brief, the first of which is thus stated: . The record discloses that the arrest procedure was in accordance with statutory authority. The magistrate had jurisdiction in any event. Commonwealth ex rel. DiDio v. Baldi, 176 Pa.Super. 119, 106 A.2d 910. Moreover, appellant's complaint may not be raised after indictment. Commonwealth ex rel. Gaurich v. Keenan, 181 Pa.Super. 619, 124 A.2d 144.
Appellant's second contention is thus stated: . Although an accidental confrontation in the court house corridor may have occurred in the absence of counsel, Mrs. Gassel and her maid each made a positive in-court identification. No evidence was introduced by the Commonwealth regarding the prior photograph identification, and no objection was made. Cf. Commonwealth v. Payton, 431 Pa. 105, 244 A.2d 644. The trial judge correctly determined that the in-court identification had an independent origin.
Appellant's third contention is thus stated: . Appellant was first tried October 17, 1967. A new trial was granted on May 6, 1968. Appellant was again brought to trial October 23, 1968. One of the twelve jurors who had been selected for this trial did not appear because of a death in the family. Appellant did not wish to proceed with less than twelve jurors and specifically requested a mistrial. A new panel of jurors was picked promptly, and the trial proceeded on October 25, 1968. Appellant may not now complain. Cf. Commonwealth v. Melton, 406 Pa. 343, 178 A.2d 728.
Appellant's fourth contention is thus stated: . A challenge to the array must be made not later than five days before the first day of the week the case is listed for trial. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1104(b), 19 P.S. Appendix. Not only did appellant fail to comply with this rule, but also he did not raise the contention in the court below. Cf. Commonwealth v. Bozzi, 178 Pa.Super. 224, 116 A.2d 290.
Appellant's fifth contention is thus stated: . When such a contention is advanced, the task of the court encompasses both an independent review of the record and an examination of counsel's stewardship in light of the available alternatives, and the burden of demonstrating a constitutional deprivation is on the defendant. Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349. Appellant asserts (1) that counsel failed to advise him that the absence of one of the twelve jurors 'amounted to the inability of the Commonwealth to prosecute his case and would mean an acquital'; (2) that counsel failed to object to the photographic and subsequent in-court identifications; (3) that counsel failed 'to insure a voir dire at his last trial'; and (4) 'the systematic exclusion of Black Americans and his peers from the jury'. Rejecting each of these claims, we find, in the words of Mr. Justice Roberts, 'that there existed a reasonable basis to support counsel's chosen course', and that appellant's rights were fully protected.
In summary, we have made a painstaking examination of this voluminous original record. Each one of appellant's contentions has been carefully considered. We find no merit in this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
The majority has disposed of all the issues expressly raised in appellant's eighteen page holographic pro-se brief. In my view, however, the very existence of that partly illegible and incomprehensible brief, considered in light of correspondence from counsel and appellant to this Court, raises a further issue: I do not believe appellant has been afforded effective representation of counsel on this appeal.
The Norristown Public Defender, appellant's court-appointed counsel, has apparently limited his services to the xeroxing of appellant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Lototsky
-
Commonwealth v. Meekins
... ... Myers, 422 Pa. 180, ... 220 A.2d 859 (1966); Commonwealth v. Rios, 246 ... Pa.Super. 479, 371 A.2d 937 (1977); Commonwealth v ... Reeves, 218 Pa.Super. 88, 272 A.2d 197 (1970); cf ... Commonwealth v. Manley, 252 Pa.Super. 77, 380 A.2d ... 1290 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 460 ... ...
-
Com. v. Meekins
...v. Myers, 422 Pa. 180, 220 A.2d 859 (1966); Commonwealth v. Rios, 246 Pa.Super. 479, 371 A.2d 937 (1977); Commonwealth v. Reeves, 218 Pa.Super. 88, 272 A.2d 197 (1970); cf. Commonwealth v. Manley, 252 Pa.Super. 77, 380 A.2d 1290 (1977); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 460 Pa. 686, 334 A.2d 588 (1......
- Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Joseph J. Biafore, Inc.