Commonwealth v. Sacarakis

• Decision Date: 24 May 1967
• Citation: Commonwealth v. Sacarakis, 425 Pa. 439, 229 A.2d 743 (Pa. 1967)
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Anthony SACARAKIS, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

229 A.2d 743

425 Pa. 439

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Anthony SACARAKIS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 24, 1967.

Irving Wilson Coleman, Fullerton, Gus Milides, Easton, Clayton T. Hyman, Coleman & Hyman, Fullerton, for appellant.

Bernard V. O'Hard, Jr., Easton, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

BELL, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Northampton County, denying a motion for a change of venue. Anthony Sacarakis was charged with bribery, corrupt solicitation and violation of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code. On February 6, 1967, he filed a rule to show cause why a change of venue should not be granted. On February 21, 1967, the lower Court, without holding a hearing, denied the motion. Sacarakis thereafter filed an appeal to this Court from the Order which dismissed his motion for a change of venue.

This Court has recently held that an Order denying a motion for a change of venue is a non-appealable interlocutory Order and an appeal therefrom must be quashed: Commonwealth v. Haushalter, 423 Pa. 351, 223 A.2d 726. In that case, the Court said (page 352, 223 A.2d page 727):

More importantly, the order involved is interlocutory and not appealable.

'An interlocutory order is not appealable unless expressly made so by statute: Commonwealth v. Byrd, 421 Pa. 513, 219 A.2d 293 (1966); Commonwealth ex rel. Fisher v. Stitzel, 418 Pa. 356, 211 A.2d 457 (1965); Commonwealth v. (Laughlin and) O'Brien, 389 Pa. 109, 132 A.2d 265 (1957). Likewise, as a general rule the Defendant ^[1] in a criminal case may appeal only from the judgment of sentence: Commonwealth v. Pollick, 420 Pa. 61, 215 A.2d 904 (1966), and Commonwealth v. Wright, 383 Pa. 532, 119 A.2d 492 (1956). While this rule is not inflexible and will yield in cases involving certain exceptional circumstances (see, Commonwealth v. Kilgallen, 379 Pa. 315, 108 A.2d 780 (1954), and Commonwealth v. Byrd, supra), this is not such a case.'

Appeal quashed.

COHEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

---------

Notes:

^[1] Italics, ours.

---------