No. 1206 Pittsburgh 1981, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Fayette County at No. 76 of 1980.
Nancy Ann Duffield, Assistant Public Defender, Uniontown, for appellant.
Gerald R. Solomon, District Attorney, Uniontown, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wickersham, Rowley and Popovich, JJ.
[ 321 Pa. Super. Page 319]
On December 17, 1980, appellant was arrested on a charge of receiving stolen property. A preliminary hearing was held February 5, 1981, before District Justice Paul Shenal at which time it was determined a prima facie case had been established. On February 18, 1981, an Information at No. 76 of 1980, theft by receiving stolen property, was approved by the District Attorney. On May 4, 1981, appellant, accompanied by his Attorney Vincent J. Roskovensky, II., appeared before the Honorable William J.
[ 321 Pa. Super. Page 320]
Franks for the trial of his case. On May 5, 1981, the jury found appellant guilty as charged. On May 11, 1981, appellant's counsel filed, on his behalf, a motion for new trial and in arrest of judgment. On August 24, 1981, said motions were denied and appellant was directed to present himself for sentencing. On November 6, 1981, appellant appeared before Judge Franks and was sentenced to pay the costs, to pay $10.00 to the State Treasurer, make restitution if owing, forfeit $300.00, and undergo a term of imprisonment of not less than two (2) years nor more than four (4) years. On December 4, 1981, this appeal was taken to the superior court from the judgment of sentence. Appellant raises the following issues:
1. Whether the Commonwealth failed to prove the element of "possession" for the crime of receiving stolen goods?
2. Whether the court erred in permitting the prosecution witness to testify concerning inventories and stolen property when the same were available and not utilized by the Commonwealth?
3. Whether the court erred in permitting the witness, John Skupien, to testify about rules of evidence and the admission of hearsay evidence over the objection of counsel?
4. Whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to call the appellant's only alibi witness in light of the fact that the sole defense in the case was an alibi defense?
5. Whether substantial after-discovered evidence tending to exculpate the convicted appellant may warrant ...