Com. v. Stanton
Decision Date | 14 July 1978 |
Citation | 388 A.2d 1053,479 Pa. 521 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. David STANTON, Vaughn Howell and Gerald Hinkley. Appeal of Vaughn HOWELL. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Edward P. Little, Jr., Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Before EAGEN, C. J., and O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.
Appellant, Vaughn Howell, was tried by a judge and a jury and was convicted of burglary. Post-verdict motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to three-to-ten years' imprisonment.
An appeal was filed with the Superior Court. That court remanded the matter for resentencing because appellant's counsel had not been given an opportunity to inspect the presentence report, but affirmed the judgment of sentence in all other respects. Commonwealth v. Stanton, 239 Pa.Super. 47, 362 A.2d 355 (1976). Appellant filed a petition for allowance of appeal, which this court granted.
The facts are as follows. Shortly before midnight on August 18, 1973, appellant and his co-defendants, Gerald Hinkley and David Stanton, were drinking at Red's Diner in Springville Township, Susquehanna County. Appellant offered to sell Hinkley four calves and one beef cow for $600. The four calves were taken from the barn of Roger Sherman while the beef cow was taken from the barn of Dale Brown. Hinkley gave appellant a check for $150 with the balance of $450 due within two weeks.
Sherman and Brown discovered their animals were missing the next morning. Both farmers notified the police. Subsequent investigation led to the arrest of all three co-defendants.
Appellant testified in his own defense, claiming that Sherman owed him money for work performed. When appellant pressed Sherman for the money, Sherman told him he was short of cash. As appellant had helped Sherman for a number of years and Sherman had often paid his debts by giving cattle, the pair discussed paying appellant in cattle. Sherman offered appellant any four calves of his choice. When told this was insufficient, Sherman offered to throw in a beef cow. For some reason, appellant believed the cow was the one eventually taken from the Brown farm. 1
Appellant testified that on the night the cattle were taken, he intended to tell either Sherman or a member of the family that he was taking the cattle. When driving past the Sherman farmhouse, however, appellant saw no lights on, so he decided to wait until the next day to tell Sherman he had taken the cattle. After taking the beef cow from the Brown farm, appellant and his co-defendants went to the Sherman barn and took the four calves. 2
Appellant and Hinkley 3 were convicted of burglary for their entry into the Brown barn, but acquitted of the charges relating to their entry of the Sherman barn. Further, both were acquitted of the charges of theft of the livestock.
Appellant first argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for burglary. We do not agree.
The Crimes Code provides:
". . . A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with intent to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter." Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502(a).
In Commonwealth v. Rose, 463 Pa. 264, 267-68, 344 A.2d 824, 825-826 (1975), we stated:
(Citations omitted.)
Viewing the evidence in the light of this standard, we believe the evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction for burglary.
Appellant next argues that he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. 4 He claims counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's charge on the intent necessary to convict for burglary. We agree with appellant and grant him a new trial.
In Com. ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 604, 235 A.2d 349, 352-53 (1967), we stated:
(Emphasis in original.)
The exact question for our disposition, as set forth in Judge Hoffman's dissenting opinion in the Superior Court, is:
Commonwealth v. Stanton, supra, 239 Pa.Super. at 63, 362 A.2d at 363.
In the instant case, appellant was charged with burglary. He admitted entering both barns, but denied having the requisite intent required to sustain a conviction for burglary. The jury's proper understanding of intent was paramount in this case. Yet, as pointed out by Judge Hoffman:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Hardcastle
...time when the premises were not open to the public and the defendant was not then licensed or privileged to enter. Commonwealth v. Stanton, 479 Pa. 521, 388 A.2d 1053 (1978). Appellant contends that the Commonwealth has failed to show an entry absent license or privilege. Appellant also arg......
-
Commonwealth v. Knight
... ... was not licensed or privileged to enter the structure ... Commonwealth v. Starkes, supra; Commonwealth v ... Stanton, 239 Pa.Super. 47, 50, 362 A.2d 355, 357 (1976), ... rev'd on other grounds, 479 Pa. 521, 388 A.2d 1053 ... (1978); Commonwealth v. Atkins, 232 ... ...
-
Com. v. Stago
...whether correct charges, foregone by counsel's strategy, were "crucial" or "paramount" to appellant's case. In Commonwealth v. Stanton, 479 Pa. 521, 388 A.2d 1053 (1978), our Supreme Court held that counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the court's erroneous definition of the intent ......
-
Commonwealth v. Ramsey
... ... before this Court. See Commonwealth v. Dancer, 460 Pa. 95, ... 331 A.2d 435 (1975); Com. v. Lee, 254 Pa.Super. 495, 386 A.2d ... 59 (1978) ... [2] See, e. g., Commonwealth v. White, 476 Pa ... 350, 382 A.2d 1205 (1978) (Claim of ... 386, 380 A.2d ... 833 (1977); Commonwealth v. Wareham, 251 Pa.Super. 130, 380 ... A.2d 412 (1977) ... [4] See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Stanton, 479 ... Pa. 521, 388 A.2d 1053 (1978) (Counsel failed to object to ... trial court's erroneous charge on "intent" in ... burglary prosecution ... ...