Appeals from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, April T., 1972, Nos. 298 and 299, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. David Campbell.
Michael Bolno and John W. Packel, Assistant Defenders, and Vincent J. Ziccardi, Defender, for appellant.
David Richman, James Garrett, Mark Sendrow, and Steven H. Goldblatt, Assistant District Attorneys, Abraham J. Gafni, Deputy District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Cercone, J.
[ 231 Pa. Super. Page 83]
Appellant, David Campbell, was tried and convicted in a non-jury trial of larceny, receiving stolen goods, and possession of burglary tools. Oral post-trial motions were argued and denied. Appellant was sentenced
[ 231 Pa. Super. Page 84]
to concurrent terms of five years probation on the bills charging larceny and receiving stolen goods. Sentence was suspended for possession of burglary tools. The instant appeal followed.
The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence inculpatory statements made both before and after the appellant's arrest. The appellant contends that his initial inculpatory statement was inadmissible because it was given without his first having received the required Constitutional warnings; and that his second incriminating admission -- although preceded by the requisite Miranda warnings -- was tainted by the prior unwarned statement.
Rule 323(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, provides, inter alia, that if an application to suppress evidence is not filed within the required time limit, "the issue of the admissibility of such evidence shall be deemed to be waived." In the instant case, no application to suppress was filed and, accordingly, the issue of the admissibility of the statements has been waived. See Commonwealth v. Goggans, 455 Pa. 606, 317 A.2d 222 (1974); Commonwealth v. Sasser, 453 Pa. 622, 309 A.2d 352 (1973); Commonwealth v. Valle, 227 Pa. Superior Ct. 191, 323 A.2d 74 (1974); Commonwealth v. Armor, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 529, 323 A.2d 211 (1974). The express language of Rule 323(b),*fn1 and the necessity of maintaining an efficient and orderly judicial system, require strict compliance with this rule in all but the most limited instances.
Judgment of sentence is affirmed.