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. JOSEPH BROOME (07/08/83)

filed: July 8, 1983.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JOSEPH BROOME, APPELLANT



No. 1623 Philadelphia, 1981, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division - Criminal Section, of Philadelphia County, Nos. 2531, 2532, 2534, 2535 and 2536 May Term, 1980

COUNSEL

Vincent Wayne Mirigliani, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Steven J. Cooperstein, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Wickersham, Cirillo and Lipez, JJ. Cirillo, J., files dissenting opinion.

Author: Lipez

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 2]

In a non-jury trial, defendant was convicted of robbery, theft, aggravated assault, simple assault, possession of an instrument of crime, and criminal conspiracy. Post-verdict motions were filed and denied, and sentences imposed. We agree with defendant that because the juvenile court judge failed to state specific reasons for certifying him for trial as an adult, we must vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new certification hearing.*fn1

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 3]

Specifically, defendant contends that there was no adequate statement of reasons for determining that he was not amenable to treatment in the juvenile system. 42 Pa.C.S. ยง 6355(a)(4)(iii)(A).

In order to comply with the statute, the lower court need not make a formal statement or conventional findings of fact but "the statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that . . . the question [of certification] has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review." Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561, 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1057, 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966). When the lower court advances no specific reasons for its conclusion that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation as a juvenile through available facilities, we will remand for a new certification hearing. Commonwealth v. Bey, 249 Pa. Super. 185, 375 A.2d 1304 (1977).

Commonwealth v. Harrod 260 Pa. Super.Ct. 312, 316, 394 A.2d 567, 570, (1978); accord, Commonwealth v. Stokes, 279 Pa. Super.Ct. 361, 367, 421 A.2d 240, 243 (1980).

[ 317 Pa. Super. Page 4]

Here the juvenile court judge's complete statement concerning amenability to treatment as a juvenile was as follows: "A further review of the juvenile file indicates he is not amenable to treatment within the system and accordingly the Court will certify." The Commonwealth contends that the bald reference to the juvenile file is sufficiently specific because the juvenile file has been made part of the record, but these are precisely the circumstances held to be insufficient in Commonwealth v. Stokes, supra, 279 Pa. Superior Ct. at 367-69, 421 A.2d at 243-44. We must therefore vacate the judgment of sentence and remand for a new certification hearing. If it is determined that certification was improper, the informations must be dismissed and the defendant returned to juvenile court. If it is determined that certification was proper, the judgment of sentence shall be reinstated, and ...


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.