Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. ROBERT SMITH (05/20/83)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


filed: May 20, 1983.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ROBERT SMITH, APPELLANT

NO. 1486 PHILADELPHIA, 1980, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Trial Division, of Philadelphia County, at Nos. 1296-1298 September Term, 1979.

COUNSEL

Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Price, Montemuro and Van der Voort, JJ. Price, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 314 Pa. Super. Page 206]

Appellant, Robert Smith, was tried by a jury and found guilty of burglary, criminal trespass, and possession of an instrument of crime. Prior to trial, he attempted to waive trial by jury and requested to be tried by the court. The

[ 314 Pa. Super. Page 207]

Commonwealth requested trial by jury in accordance with the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. § 5104(c).*fn1 The trial court denied appellant's request for a trial without jury. A direct appeal to this Court was then taken from the judgment of sentence.

Appellant's sole contention on this appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to waive a trial by jury. He argues first that the court erred in denying the motion solely because the Commonwealth did not consent. He then contends that § 5104(c) is unconstitutional because it infringes upon the procedural rule making power of the Supreme Court, in particular Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure 1101.*fn2 Because the appeal presented a constitutional challenge to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5104(c), this Court certified the constitutional issue to the Supreme Court for decision.

On December 30, 1982, in Commonwealth v. Sorrell, et al., 500 Pa. 355, 456 A.2d 1326 (1982), the Supreme Court held the statute unconstitutional. However, the court found that in appellant's case the trial court had properly applied Rule 1101 and properly exercised its discretion thereunder. Therefore, the Supreme Court having decided the sole issue here on appeal, there is nothing remaining for us to address. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal

Appeal dismissed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.