Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. ULICELS R. HARRIS A/K/A ULYSSES R. HARRIS A/K/A JAMES COOPER (TWO CASES) (07/14/78)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: July 14, 1978.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ULICELS R. HARRIS A/K/A ULYSSES R. HARRIS A/K/A JAMES COOPER (TWO CASES)

Nos. 450 and 521 January Term, 1976, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, Criminal Section of Philadelphia County, as of June Sessions, 1975, Nos. 122, 124, 125 and 126.

COUNSEL

DeMarco & Carrafiello, James J. DeMarco, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Edward G. Rendell, Dist. Atty., Steven H. Goldblatt, Deputy Dist. Atty. for Law, Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals Div., Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

Eagen, C. J., and O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino and Larsen, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 479 Pa. Page 345]

OPINION OF THE COURT

On March 28, 1975, appellant-defendant Ulicels R. Harris, a/k/a Ulysses R. Harris, a/k/a James Cooper, was arrested on charges of assault, criminal conspiracy, robbery, possession of instruments of crime and of prohibited offensive weapons and murder. After a jury trial, on October 9, 1975, appellant was found guilty of murder of the second degree, criminal conspiracy and two counts of robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count, ten to twenty years on each of the robbery counts and five to ten years on the count of criminal conspiracy. All of the sentences are to run concurrently.

Appellant raises five issues on appeal:

1. The evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict.

2. Evidence should have been suppressed because it was seized pursuant to an illegal arrest.

3. The trial judge exceeded the range of fair comment in his charge to the jury, thereby causing prejudice.

4. Execution of a search warrant in the absence of the occupant of the premises being searched is violative of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights.

5. The trial court permitted the introduction of irrelevant evidence unduly prejudicial to the defendant.

We find that the third issue was waived and that the remaining issues are without merit. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of sentence of the lower court.

19780714

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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