Appeal from Judgment of Sentence entered July 31, 1985, Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Criminal Division at No. CC8306044.
Paulette J. Balogh, Assistant Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Com., appellee.
Wickersham, Johnson and Watkins, JJ.
[ 357 Pa. Super. Page 33]
A jury found Robert J. Ball, Appellant, guilty of burglary, terroristic threats, and intimidation of witnesses or victims. Post-verdict motions were denied and, on July 31, 1985, the Honorable Samuel J. Strauss sentenced Appellant to a term of three and one-half to ten years' imprisonment on the burglary conviction, and five years' probation, to run consecutively, on the intimidation conviction.
Appellant filed a pro se direct appeal and the Office of the Public Defender was appointed to pursue the appeal. Only two issues are presented for our review:
1. Should Appellant have been granted a new trial based upon alleged after-acquired evidence?
2. Was trial counsel ineffective by failing to call certain witnesses at trial?
Finding no merit in either issue, we affirm.
Regarding the first issue, our distinguished colleague, the Honorable Phyllis W. Beck, has recently restated the well-settled rule in this Commonwealth regarding after-discovered evidence:
[ 357 Pa. Super. Page 34]
The legal standard to be applied is well-settled. A new trial will be awarded on the basis of after-discovered evidence ...