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. ANTHONY PONDER (01/20/84)

filed: January 20, 1984.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
ANTHONY PONDER, APPELLANT



No. 167 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from Judgments of Sentence of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Philadelphia County, Nos. 77001-1754 to 1758.

COUNSEL

Norris E. Gelman, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Jane Cutler Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Spaeth, President Judge, and Wieand and Montemuro, JJ.

Author: Wieand

[ 323 Pa. Super. Page 568]

Anthony Ponder was tried non-jury and was found guilty of robbery, conspiracy and related offenses arising from a theft committed at knifepoint in the City of Philadelphia. The trial judge thereafter sustained a motion in arrest of judgment and ordered Ponder's discharge. On appeal to this Court, the order arresting judgment was reversed; and the case was remanded for consideration of an undetermined motion for new trial. See: Commonwealth v. Ponder, 260 Pa. Super. 225, 393 A.2d 1235 (1978). The trial judge, on remand, ordered a new trial; and the case was

[ 323 Pa. Super. Page 569]

    subsequently assigned to another judge for retrial. Ponder again waived trial by jury and elected to be tried without a jury. Following a verdict of guilty, oral post-trial motions were denied, and Ponder was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment for not less than three nor more than twenty years on the robbery conviction and was placed on probation for ten years on the conviction for conspiracy. Ponder filed a direct appeal from the judgments of sentence.

Appellant's first contention is that his "waiver of jury trial was not a knowing and intelligent waiver of his jury trial rights since at no time was there any mention of how he would participate in the selection of the jury nor was there any mention of his absolute right to challenges for cause or preemptory [sic] challenges." There is no merit in this argument.*fn1

In Commonwealth v. Smith, 498 Pa. 661, 663, 450 A.2d 973, 973-974 (1982), the Supreme Court addressed the adequacy of a jury-trial-waiver colloquy as follows:

"Our Rules of Criminal Procedure require a trial judge to ascertain whether a defendant's waiver of the right to trial by jury 'is a knowing and intelligent waiver, and such colloquy shall appear on the record.' Pa.R.Crim.Proc. 1101. For the waiver to be 'knowing and intelligent,' the defendant must know 'the essential ingredients of a jury trial' --

'the requirements that the jury be chosen from members of the community (a jury of ...


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.