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. JOSEPH BOARDMAN (06/19/81)

filed: June 19, 1981.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JOSEPH BOARDMAN, APPELLANT



No. 1411 October Term, 1979, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence imposed of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Criminal Division, at Nos. 2646-78, 2647-78, 2648-78, 2649-78, 2650-78, 2651-78, 2652-78, 2174-78, 3001-78.

COUNSEL

Morris Gerber, Norristown, for appellant.

Ronald T. Williamson, Assistant District Attorney, Norristown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Price, Cavanaugh and Watkins, JJ.

Author: Watkins

[ 290 Pa. Super. Page 8]

This is an appeal from the imposition of sentence after a plea of guilty. The court below relates the circumstances surrounding the plea.

"On December 7, 1978, the defendant entered an open plea of guilty to nine informations, encompassing seven (7) counts each of burglary and criminal conspiracy, nine (9) counts each of theft of movable property and receiving stolen property and three (3) counts of criminal trespass. Following a pre-sentence investigation, the defendant was sentenced to seven (7) concurrent terms of four to fifteen (4-15) years imprisonment on the burglary charges and two and one-half to five (2 & 1/2-5) years imprisonment on the theft and conspiracy charges to be served concurrently with the burglary sentences. The remaining charges were either merged with the burglary conviction or sentences were suspended.

A hearing was held on the petition for reconsideration of the sentences and the original sentences were imposed. However, the court below admits that a clerical error caused

[ 290 Pa. Super. Page 9]

    the sentence of theft of movable property to be the same as imposed on the burglary charges. The sentence should be reduced to the original sentence of two and one-half to five (2 & 1/2-5) years and this Court will make the correction.

The principal argument of the defendant is that the sentences are unduly harsh and excessive. We have said many times that sentencing is within the discretion of the trial court and we will not interfere unless they exceed the statutory limits or are so manifestly excessive as to constitute too severe a punishment. Commonwealth v. Wrona, 442 Pa. 201, 206, 275 A.2d 78, 80 (1971).

The court below considered carefully the statutory provision designed to guide its sentencing discretion. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, as amended, December 30, 1974, ...


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.