Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. BUDDY LEE STROUP (12/15/76)

decided: December 15, 1976.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
BUDDY LEE STROUP, APPELLANT



Appeal from Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Blair County, at No. C.A. 757 of 1974. No. 173 April Term, 1976.

COUNSEL

John Woodcock, Jr., Public Defender, Hollidaysburg, for appellant.

Edward S. Newlin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Hollidaysburg, for appellee.

Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Watkins, President Judge, dissents.

Author: Van Der Voort

[ 244 Pa. Super. Page 175]

Appeal is taken to our Court from judgment of sentence rendered following jury trial and adjudication of guilt on April 4, 1975. The first trial of appellant on the charge of which he was found guilty began, before a jury, on March 4, 1975.*fn1 This resulted in a mistrial, declared sua sponte, on the afternoon of the first day of trial. An Order issued which reads as follows:

NOW, this 14th day of March, 1975, it appearing to the Court that there was a compelling reason for the entry of a Mistrial by virtue of the fact that during the course of the trial of this cause, without notice or notification by any party to the Court, counsel for the

[ 244 Pa. Super. Page 176]

    defendant was involved in the disposition of another matter before another Court in another Court Room and the defendant having expressed the desire not to proceed without the presence of his counsel and in view of the fact that the Court was involved in other matters, a Mistrial was declared. This for the purpose of protecting the defendant and according to the defendant the request which he had made for representation by his counsel.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, DIRECTED AND DECREED that the time within which this case shall again be brought to trial is extended and including the 11th day of April, 1975.

By the Court:

/s/ Robert C. Haberstroh, P. J.

A most explanatory Order issued denying appellant's petition for discharge of indictment, following hearing thereon. Dated April 3, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.