Commonwealth v. Haimbach.

• Citation: 151 Pa.Super. 581,30 A.2d 653
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. HAIMBACH.
• Decision Date: 26 February 1943
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

151 Pa.Super. 581
30 A.2d 653

COMMONWEALTH
v.
HAIMBACH.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Feb. 26, 1943.

Appeals Nos. 322, 323, 324, October term, 1942, from Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County at Nos. 484, 485, 486, February Sessions, 1942; Frank Smith, Presiding Judge.

Frank Haimbach, Jr., was convicted of fraudulent conversion as charged in one indictment and with embezzlement as charged in two other indictments, and he appeals from the judgment under one of the embezzlement charges, Bill No. 485, February Sessions 1942, and from the recording of the verdicts in each of the two other cases.

Judgment on Bill No. 485; other appeals dismissed.

30 A.2d 654

Cecil P. Harvey and Walter Jones, both of Philadelphia, for appellant.

Theodore L. Reimel, Asst. Dist. Atty., and John H. Maurer, Dist. Atty., both of Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before KELLER, P. J., and BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, RHODES, HIRT and KENWORTHEY, JJ.

HIRT, Judge.

Defendant was charged with fraudulent conversion in one indictment and with embezzlement in two others. The charges were consolidated for trial before the same jury and defendant was convicted on all of them. He was sentenced only on bill No. 485 February Sessions 1942. Defendant has appealed from the judgment of sentence on that bill and also from the “recording of the verdict” in each of the other two cases, in which sentence was suspended. These latter appeals will be dismissed.

In general an appeal can be taken only after sentence. “After verdict and judgment thereon, then, and not till then, can the alleged error be reviewed here on writ of error.” Com. v. Ruth, 104 Pa. 294; Petition of Quay, 189 Pa. 517, 542, 42 A. 199; Com. v. Penrod, 1 Wkly.Notes Cas. 65. In Marsh v. Commonwealth, 16 Serg. & R. 319, a writ of error was quashed when it appeared that the defendant, though convicted, had not been sentenced. The Supreme Court said: “It is time enough to permit him to arrest the course of the criminal law, when he has shown that he has suffered actual injury.” The Acts of June 24, 1895, P.L. 212, 17 P.S. § 111 et seq., and May 19, 1897, P.L. 67, 12 P.S. § 1133, make no provision for an appeal to this court in criminal cases except from a sentence or final judgment. Com. v. Gates, 98 Pa. Super. 591. Appeals from such orders have been quashed generally (Com. v. Mellon, 81 Pa.Super. 20) “in recognition of the well-established rule that final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” Com. ex rel...