No. 3381 Philadelphia, 1982, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence of October 26, 1982, Court of Common Pleas, Lancaster County, Criminal Division at No. 992 of 1981.
Robert D. Bacher, Assistant Public Defender, Lancaster, for appellant.
Edward F. Browne, Jr., Assistant District Attorney, Lancaster, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Cirillo, Beck and Johnson, JJ.
[ 326 Pa. Super. Page 563]
Appellant was convicted of receiving stolen property*fn1 after a non-jury trial on January 5, 1982 and subsequently sentenced to six to twelve months imprisonment. This direct appeal followed.
The record indicates that police obtained a search warrant on April 28, 1981 to search appellant's residence for controlled substances. The warrant affidavit set forth that three police officers had observed what appeared to be a
[ 326 Pa. Super. Page 564]
marijuana plant on the roof of appellant's residence on the previous day. The affiant officer had, later that previous day, proceeded to the residence, but observed that the plant was no longer there. The affidavit also set forth information received from a confidential informant prior to the observations that appellant was selling drugs from the residence. No facts relating to the informant's reliability or credibility were set forth.
Appellant's residence was searched on April 28, 1981 and four Pennsylvania vehicle inspection stickers were recovered from inside a calculator wallet located inside a closed drawer within the residence. The stickers were subsequently determined to have been stolen.
Appellant raises two issues: (1) was there probable cause for the issuance of the warrant, where the warrant failed to establish the informant's reliability and where the affiant's subsequent observation of the residence failed to reveal the previously observed plant and (2) was the seizure of the inspection stickers lawful, when based on a search warrant for controlled substances and the fact that the stickers were not known to be stolen at the time of their seizure.
Initially, we note that this second issue has been waived. For an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be specifically raised in written post-verdict motions. Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975); Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974). Appellant raised, by way of post-verdict motion, that the trial court erred in not sustaining his suppression motion.*fn2 The written suppression motion did not raise any aspect of the second issue as a ground for relief. Hence, the issue has not been properly ...