Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Aug. T., 1971, Nos. 344, 345, and 346, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Richard L. Wilson.
Arnold L. New, for appellant.
N. Kitrosser, with him 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, and Spaeth, JJ. (Van der Voort, J., absent.) Opinion by Jacobs. Van der Voort, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 232 Pa. Super. Page 146]
This appellant was convicted following a bench trial on charges of aggravated robbery and burglary. Arguing in this direct appeal that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the verdict, the appellant urges that this Court cannot in good conscience refuse his claim because a co-defendant's motion in arrest of judgment was granted by the judge "when the evidence introduced [was] identical as to both defendants."
We agree that the evidence presented was substantially identical as to both defendants. In Commonwealth v. Meadows, 232 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 331 A.2d 827 (1974), we vacated the order of the court which granted the co-defendant's motion in arrest of judgment; and, finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the verdict, we reinstated that verdict. We make the same finding as to the appellant herein.
[ 232 Pa. Super. Page 147]