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. GARY LEE IVERSON (06/25/86)

submitted: June 25, 1986.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
GARY LEE IVERSON, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence August 7, 1985, in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Criminal Nos. 5464-82, 5465-82.

COUNSEL

Leo M. Pall, Upper Darby, for appellant.

John A. Reilly, District Attorney, Media, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Olszewski, Hoffman and Roberts, JJ.

Author: Olszewski

[ 358 Pa. Super. Page 2]

Appellant challenges the judgment of sentence following jury convictions on two separate informations.*fn1 In this

[ 358 Pa. Super. Page 3]

    appeal, two allegations of error are presented for our review. First, appellant contends that it was improper for the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas to give effect to the suppression hearing held in the State of Delaware. Second, appellant argues ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure of defense counsel to call a potential witness to testify. Because of the reasons to be discussed infra, we find appellant's arguments meritless and affirm the trial court.

Following the issuance of an arrest warrant in Delaware County, Pennsylvania police and Delaware State Police engaged in surveillance of an apartment in Claymont, Delaware. Upon observing appellant exit the apartment and drive away with two companions, Pennsylvania State Police stopped the vehicle. Appellant was arrested by the Delaware State Police and transported to Delaware State Police barracks. While there, he was questioned by Pennsylvania police and admitted to numerous crimes in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Maryland.

Appellant was tried on the Delaware crimes first. As part of the proceedings, a suppression hearing was held to determine if the statements given to police on the day of the arrest were involuntary, coerced, and obtained after a violation of appellant's Miranda rights. Suppression was denied.

After being convicted in Delaware, appellant was charged in Pennsylvania. Trial counsel filed an omnibus pre-trial motion which included a motion to suppress statements and evidence. Because the suppression issues before the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas had previously been litigated in Delaware state court, the trial court gave effect to that decision to deny suppression. The trial court not only held a hearing on suppression issues not decided by the Delaware state court, but also allowed appellant the opportunity

[ 358 Pa. Super. Page 4]

    to challenge the previously litigated issue. No statements or ...


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.