Appeal from judgment of sentence of Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County, April T., 1969, No. 88, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Alvin Clark.
H. David Rothman, for appellant.
Robert L. Campbell, Assistant District Attorney, with him Charles W. Johns and Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorneys, John M. Tighe, First Assistant District Attorney, and John J. Hickton, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, and Spaeth, JJ. (Van der Voort, J., absent). Van der Voort, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Opinion in Support of Affirmance by Watkins, P.j. Jacobs and Price, JJ., join. Van der Voort, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Opinion in Support of Reversal by Hoffman, J. Cercone and Spaeth, JJ., join in this opinion.
[ 238 Pa. Super. Page 445]
The six Judges who heard this appeal being equally divided, the judgment of sentence is affirmed.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Opinion in Support of Affirmance by Watkins, P.J.:
This is an appeal from the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County by the defendant, Alvin Clark, after conviction in a non-jury trial of sixteen counts of corrupt solicitation and bribery; and from the denial of post-trial motions. He was sentenced to consecutive sentences of six months to one year on each of the sixteen counts of bribery. He was similarly sentenced on the sixteen counts of corrupt solicitation to run concurrently with the bribery sentences.
[ 238 Pa. Super. Page 446]
The appellant was initially tried before a court and jury and was convicted. His conviction was affirmed by this court in Commonwealth v. Clark, 220 Pa. Superior Ct. 326, 286 A.2d 383 (1971). A dissenting opinion was filed by Hoffman, J., joined in by Spaulding and Cercone, JJ., holding that the crimes of bribery and corrupt solicitation merge. However, the Supreme Court, on allocatur, did not consider the merger question but reversed on the ground that the prosecution had made references to prior criminal conduct of the defendant. This was not alluded to in the dissenting opinion.
The facts are as follows: Appellant saw a friend and associate, one George Robinson, a "known drug user", arrested. He then got in touch with one of the arresting officers, Detective McGreevy, to "get together on things" and allegedly offered him a bottle of whiskey. He proposed that he and McGreevy enter into an agreement whereby appellant's "people" would not be bothered by the narcotics squad. It is alleged that he ...