No. 706 Pittsburgh, 1981, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Indiana County at Nos. 421-424, 482-484 Crim. 1980.
Donald R. Marsh, Indiana, for appellant.
Gregory Allen Olson, Assistant District Attorney, Indiana, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Brosky, Cirillo and Popovich, JJ.
[ 305 Pa. Super. Page 100]
On December 8, 1980, appellant, Troy Eugene Klingensmith, was found guilty by a jury of robbery and aggravated assault. Post-verdict motions were denied and appellant was sentenced to a period of incarceration of seven and one-half years to fifteen years. Having also been charged with six separate counts of burglary and related offenses, he entered guilty pleas thereon and was sentenced to five concurrent terms of imprisonment of not less than seven and one-half years nor more than fifteen years and one period of probation of ten years to be served consecutively to the other sentences. All of these sentences were imposed on June 22, 1981. On June 30, 1981, appellant filed with the trial court a "MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEAS." On July 21, 1981, the lower court (per EARLY, J.) ordered that an argument on said motion be held on October 7, 1981.
[ 305 Pa. Super. Page 101]
Prior thereto, however, appellant filed this direct appeal from judgment of sentence on July 9, 1981.
We affirm the judgment of sentence for robbery and remand the record as to the six guilty pleas to the trial court for disposition of appellant's motion challenging those pleas.
The facts concerning the robbery may be briefly stated: Appellant entered the home of Ford and Charlotte Laney in Clymer, Pa., in the evening of September 14, 1980. Masked and armed, appellant demanded car keys and money of the victims. When Mr. Laney attempted to disarm appellant, the gun discharged wounding the victim.
Appellant now raises four issues: that the court erred in refusing to suppress Mr. Laney's identification; that the court erred in admitting into evidence the shirt worn by appellant during the incident; that the court erred in denying his demurrer; that the court erred when it denied appellant's motion, made for the first time after the Commonwealth had rested its case, to subpoena alibi witnesses including his parents.
We have thoroughly examined the record in light of these assertions and find them to be without merit. The trial court adequately addressed these matters in its opinion, and we find no need to comment further.
In order to clarify a somewhat confusing record, we must retrace the procedural history of this case to dispose of the appellant's last ...