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. LEWIS K. BAKER (02/19/82)

filed: February 19, 1982.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
LEWIS K. BAKER, APPELLANT



No. 99 Harrisburg, 1980, Appeal from the Order dated February 14, 1980, Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Trial Division, Perry County at Nos. 88 and 116 of 1979.

COUNSEL

Alan Ellis, State College, for appellant.

C. Joseph Rehkamp, District Attorney, New Bloomfield, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Brosky, Johnson and Popovich, JJ. Popovich, J., files a dissenting opinion.

Author: Johnson

[ 295 Pa. Super. Page 402]

This is an appeal from the Order of Forfeiture dated February 14, 1980, denying Appellant's Application for Return of Property.

The issue involves whether the lower court erred in determining that the sum of one thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($1,250) seized from Appellant's bedroom was, in fact, contraband and therefore not returnable.*fn1

Appellant was arrested on May 8, 1979, and charged with a total of twenty-two counts. On May 21, 1979, Appellant assigned all rights in the said monies to his attorney. On August 27, 1979, Appellant pled guilty to fourteen counts of unlawful delivery*fn2 and two counts of possession with intent to deliver*fn3 a controlled substance, three counts of criminal conspiracy*fn4 and two counts of criminal attempt.*fn5

At a hearing on January 17, 1980, pursuant to Appellant's Application for Return of Property, it was stipulated that:

[ 295 Pa. Super. Page 403]

(1) monies were found in a suitcase containing various illegal drugs, (2) that a State Trooper would testify that he observed Appellant place the proceeds of drug sales in a pouch at various times, which then was placed in the suitcase, (3) that these proceeds were not necessarily those particular monies, and (4) that Appellant stated, after his arrest, that the monies were "front money", advanced to Appellant in order to purchase drugs.

Rule 324, Pa.R.Crim.P., states:

Rule 324. Motion for Return of ...


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.