Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County, Dec. T., 1971, No. 8140, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. George Preininger.
John H. Corbett, Jr., Trial Defender, with him John J. Dean, Chief, Appellate Division, and George H. Ross, Public Defender, for appellant.
J. Kent Culley, Assistant District Attorney, with him Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorney, and Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Price, J. Van der Voort, J., concurs in the result. Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J. Dissenting Opinion by Spaeth, J.
[ 230 Pa. Super. Page 41]
Appellant was indicted for Armed Robbery and Receiving Stolen Goods, arising from a robbery at knife point of articles valued at thirty-five dollars, and found guilty on both counts by a jury on June 15,
[ 230 Pa. Super. Page 421973]
. The appellant was placed on probation for a period of ten years, with an "alternate" sentence of not less than two-and-one-half nor more than five years for any violation of probation.*fn1 Post-trial motions for New Trial and Arrest of Judgment were denied on October 29, 1973.
The appellant raises a number of issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion.*fn2 Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by placing appellant on an excessively long period of probation. Specifically, appellant objects to the 10 year probation period as being oppressive and without rehabilitation value, because the facts indicate that the probation was based upon the armed robbery of only thirty-five dollars worth of items.
The Act of August 6, 1941, P. L. 861, § 25 (61 P.S. § 331.25)*fn3 provides the trial court with the power to
[ 230 Pa. Super. Page 43]
impose a term of probation rather than imprisonment. Under this statute, the lower court in its discretion, may impose upon the defendant a period of probation up to the maximum period of imprisonment allowed by law for the particular offense.*fn4 Commonwealth v. Duff, 414 Pa. 471, 200 A.2d 773 (1964).
The discretion of the trial court will not be interfered with in the imposition of a sentence, unless the sentence is manifestly excessive and inflicts too severe a punishment. Commonwealth v. Wrona, 442 Pa. 201, 275 A.2d 78 (1971); Commonwealth v. Zelnick, 202 Pa. Superior Ct. 129, 195 A.2d 171 (1963). We find no abuse of discretion in this case. The offenses are quite serious, not because the value of the property taken was thirty-five dollars, but because the offenses were committed with an "offensive weapon," depriving the victim of not only property, ...