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.

PATRICIA A. COCHRAN v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/16/82)

decided: September 16, 1982.

PATRICIA A. COCHRAN, APPELLANT
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Patricia A. Cochran, Nos. 258 and 260 Misc. Dkt. 1980.

COUNSEL

Leonard I. Sharon, with him Joseph M. Devecka, for appellant.

David L. Shenkle, with him Jay H. Karsch, Eastburn and Gray, for appellee.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers, Blatt, Craig and MacPhail. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 75]

Before this Court is the appeal of Patricia A. Cochran (Appellant) from her conviction by the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County for violating Doylestown Borough Ordinance No. 1980-5, which is

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 76]

    entitled "An Ordinance of Doylestown Borough Prohibiting the Sale or Delivery of Drug Paraphernalia." We now affirm.*fn1

Facts

Ordinance 1980-5 was enacted by the Doylestown Borough on May 19, 1980. The Ordinance makes it

[u]nlawful for any person, partnership or corporation to sell, possess with intent to sell, deliver or possess with intent to deliver drug parapheralia knowing that it will be used to plant, propogate, cultivate, grow, harvest, manufacture, compound, convert, produce, process, prepare, test analyze, pack, repack, store, contain, conceal, inject, ingest, inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a controlled substance [as defined by The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, Act of April 14, 1972, P.L. 233, as amended. 35 P.S. §§ 780-101 to 144.].

The Ordinance also provides an expansive definition of the term "Drug Paraphernalia."*fn2 Notice of the Ordinance's enactment was sent to Key Records, a retail establishment located within the Borough.*fn3

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 77]

Appellant is a retail sales employee of Key Records. On June 9, June 11 and June 16 of 1980, Appellant was cited*fn4 for violating the Ordinance by selling, or offering for sale, items alleged to be drug paraphernalia. From her summary convictions on the citations, Appellant appealed to the court of common pleas. After a non-jury trial, the Appellant was found guilty of the citations issued on June 9 and June 11, and not guilty of the citation issued on June 16. Motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial were denied in an en banc opinion and order filed March 10, 1981. Appellant was sentenced to a fine of $25 and to pay the costs of prosecution.

Appellant has raised three issues on this appeal: 1) is the Ordinance unconstitutionally vague, 2) did Appellant's conviction violate the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1, by being based on intent transferred from remote third party manufacturers, and 3) was her trial counsel ineffective as a matter of law by failing to preserve ...


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.