Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County, Criminal Division, No. 201 Criminal 1986
James M. Goodwin, Assistant Public Defender, Mercer, for appellant.
Linda H. Barr, Assistant District Attorney, Mercer, for Com.
Cirillo, President Judge, and Tamilia and Watkins, JJ.
[ 364 Pa. Super. Page 579]
Appellant in this case appeals from judgment of sentence. This Court affirms.
Appellant was accused of shooting Isaac A. Bridges on March 25, 1986 outside the Majestic Bar in Farrell, Pennsylvania. The circumstances surrounding the shooting allegedly stemmed from Mr. Bridges' kissing the appellant's
[ 364 Pa. Super. Page 580]
girlfriend on the cheek and squeezing her on the buttocks as he exited the bar. The appellant followed Bridges out of the bar, pulled out a handgun and shot him in the thigh. Several people, including the victim's brother, witnessed the occurrence and testified at trial. Appellant was charged with criminal attempt-homicide, aggravated assault, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person. Bond was increased at a preliminary hearing and appellant's subsequent motion for reduction of bond was denied on May 22, 1986. Appellant then filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Other Appropriate Relief and that motion was denied after a hearing on July 9, 1986.
In August 1986, after a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of all charges except the criminal-attempt homicide charge. Appellant filed post-trial motions and these were denied by Orders dated October 23, 1986. Sentence was entered on December 22, 1986 and was amended on January 8, 1987. Appellant filed this timely appeal as to the court's ruling on his post-trial motions.
Appellant first argues that the ruling of the lower court judge, which dismissed appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, was in error. He argues that he was prejudiced by the judge's failure to grant the petition, specifically as to the criminal attempt-homicide charge. In his Order, the judge states, "[H]aving received testimony on the matter and having determined that there is sufficient evidence to sustain at least some of the charges against the defendant, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed . . ." (Order, 7/9/86). We affirm the lower court's ruling on this matter as we find the appellant has offered no evidence of any prejudice which might have resulted from the ruling. Appellant argues that his bond was set based on all charges, including the attempted homicide, and that without that charge he could have succeeded in obtaining a reduction in his bond. With bond reduced, he could have posted bond and would thus have been in a better position to contact witnesses to testify on his behalf. The trial court, in its Opinion, however, points out that the appellant did, in
[ 364 Pa. Super. Page 581]
fact, produce six witnesses in his defense and testified himself as well (Slip Op., Acker, J., 3/10/87, p. 16). Appellant does not indicate what additional ...