Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. MAYS (11/13/56)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


November 13, 1956

COMMONWEALTH
v.
MAYS, APPELLANT.

Appeal, No. 227, Oct. T., 1956, from judgment of sentence in Court of Quarter Sessions, Philadelphia County, May T., 1954, No. 1657, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Robert Mays, Jr. Appeal dismissed.

COUNSEL

Edward B. Bergman, for appellant.

Thomas M. Reed, Assistant District Attorney, with him F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Assistant District Attorney, James N. Lafferty, First Assistant District Attorney, and Victor H. Blanc, District Attorney, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.

[ 182 Pa. Super. Page 131]

OPINION PER CURIAM

Robert Mays, Jr., was indicted in the court below on a charge of cheating by fraudulent pretenses. The case was heard by Judge NELSON, sitting without a jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the hearing judge found Mays guilty. No post-conviction motions were filed. In fact, defendant's trial counsel stated: "Your Honor, I do not want to make a cause celebre out of this thing and I do not see any necessity to file a motion for a new trial". Following the imposition of sentence, this appeal was taken.

The contention of appellant's present counsel is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. We have repeatedly stated that matters not properly

[ 182 Pa. Super. Page 132]

    raised in the court below cannot be invoked on appeal: Commonwealth v. Klick, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 449, 65 A.2d 440; Commonwealth v. Di Carlo, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 611, 101 A.2d 410; Commonwealth v. Donaducy, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 27, 107 A.2d 139; Commonwealth v. Bozzi, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 224, 116 A.2d 290; Commonwealth v. Aikens, 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 501, 118 A.2d 205; Commonwealth v. Pittman, 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 645, 118 A.2d 214. While this rule has occasionally been relaxed because of extraordinary circumstances, see Commonwealth v. Savor, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 469, 119 A.2d 849, it is our intention that it should be enforced. We have concluded that the rule must be applied in the case at bar.

Disposition

The appeal is dismissed.

19561113

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.