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. PHILLIP TOMASSO (01/21/83)

filed: January 21, 1983.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLANT,
v.
PHILLIP TOMASSO



No. 1829 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Criminal Division, at No. 79-12-0413

COUNSEL

Maxine J. Stotland, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellant.

Richard W. Hoy, Philadelphia, submitted a brief on behalf of appellee.

Wickersham, Brosky and Wieand, JJ. Wieand, J., files dissenting statement.

Author: Brosky

[ 311 Pa. Super. Page 104]

This is an appeal taken by the Commonwealth from a judgment of sentence for Terroristic Threats*fn1 and Robbery.*fn2 After a trial without jury, sentence was imposed. Appellee was sentenced to seven years strict reporting

[ 311 Pa. Super. Page 105]

    probation in conjunction with participation in a drug treatment program. The Commonwealth filed a motion to modify the sentence*fn3 which was denied after a hearing. Appellant raises two issues on appeal. They are: (1) That the sentencing court abused its discretion in not sentencing appellee in accordance with the interim sentencing guidelines act.*fn4 (2) That an increase of sentence on appeal would not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. Due to our deciding the first issue against appellant, the second issue is moot. We therefore affirm.*fn5

On appeal, appellant argues for five grounds supporting his contention on the first issue. The first matter before us is to determine which of these grounds have been preserved for appellate review. It is, of course, not sufficient that a general issue be preserved. The specific grounds supporting that issue must also be preserved. Commonwealth v. Polof, 238 Pa. Super. 565, 362 A.2d 427 (1976). Failure to so preserve the distinct grounds for an issue deprives the trial court of the opportunity to make a fully informed evaluation of the issue.

In Commonwealth v. Stufflet, 291 Pa. Super. 516 at 519, 436 A.2d 235 at 237 (1981), this court stated:

In the usual case, the failure of counsel to interpose a timely objection at the sentencing proceeding results in a waiver of the issue . . . as does the failure to file an appropriate motion to modify the sentence imposed.

(Citations deleted) (emphasis supplied).

Thus, a sentencing issue must be raised twice below (as well as on appeal): once before ...


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.