Appeals from judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of Bucks County, Nos. 414-2, 414-3 of 1965, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Sharon Blum.
Stanford Shmukler, with him Alan D. Williams, Jr., for appellant.
Ward F. Clark, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, and Spaulding, JJ. Opinion by Montgomery, J. Dissenting Opinion by Wright, J. Ervin, P. J., and Watkins, J., join in this opinion.
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 531]
In this appeal appellant-defendant, Sharon Blum, raises constitutional questions concerning a search made of her person and the propriety of her sentence to the State Industrial Home for Women at Muncy, Pennsylvania. She also questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain her conviction on two bills of indictment charging her, inter alia, with armed robbery. The Commonwealth-appellee contends that she is not privileged to raise the issues of the search and the sufficiency of the evidence inasmuch as she failed to file post-conviction motions prior to the time she was sentenced.
Before considering the legality of her sentence we deem it advisable to first determine the propriety of our considering in this appeal the issues relating to the search and the sufficiency of the evidence.
There seems no dispute as to the course this case took, which is stated in appellee's brief as follows:
"Appellant was convicted on October 26, 1966 on two bills of Indictment charging her, inter alia, with armed robbery.
"After the verdict was rendered, appellant's trial counsel, in the presence of the appellant, requested the court for a delay in sentencing so that he might have time to consider the possibility and advisability of filing post-conviction motions. The court agreed to defer sentencing until Friday of that week,*fn1 and defense counsel advised the court that his client would be present on that day either for sentencing, or, in the event that he should decide to file post-conviction motions, for the purpose of having bail re-set or increased.
"On Friday, October 28, 1966 appellant appeared for sentencing, and prior thereto, her attorney was
[ 210 Pa. Super. Page 532]
asked by the court if he had discussed with his client and advised her of the various avenues she would have the right to follow and various rights which were afforded to her; and further inquired of her counsel as to whether or not she desired to file any post-conviction motions. Her counsel, at that time, agreed that he had so advised her and that she did not intend to file such motions. He then advised the court that the defendant was ready for sentencing. ...