From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Falls and Sykes

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Sep 26, 1931
156 A. 894 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931)

Opinion

May 1, 1931.

September 26, 1931.

Appeals — Criminal law — Separate judgments.

Where a defendant takes only one appeal from six judgments of conviction on six indictments charging separate and distinct offenses, and no election is made to have the appeal confined to one of the judgments, the appeal will be quashed.

Appeals Nos. 113 and 114, October T., 1931, by defendants from judgment and sentence of Q.S., Delaware County, December T., 1930, No. 252, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William Falls and D. Harvey Sykes.

Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, and DREW, JJ. Quashed.

Indictments for conspiracy, bribery, extortion, etc. Before MacDADE, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdicts of guilty upon which judgments of sentence were passed. Defendants appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was the decree of the court.

John E. McDonough, and with him M.S. Reps, R. Paul Lessy and W.S. Sykes, for appellant.

Louis A. Bloom, Assistant District Attorney, and with him Wm. B. McClenachan, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, and William J. MacCarter, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.


Argued May 1, 1931.


Each of these defendants was found guilty on six indictments, charging respectively, conspiracy, bribery, extortion, violation of the liquor laws, malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance in office.

Separate sentences were imposed on each bill, but only one appeal was taken by each defendant. This was contrary to the decisions of this and the Supreme Court. The sentences imposed constituted separate judgments and there should have been separate appeals: DuBois Appeal, 293 Pa. 186; Com. v. Shollenberger, 17 Pa. Super. 218; Com. v. Pilnik, 29 Pa. Super. 285. Defendants' counsel did not adopt the suggestion that he might elect the one judgment to be reviewed and discontinue the others. We, therefore, are compelled to quash both appeals.

We may, however, state that the one question involved is whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the judgments. We are of the opinion, after a careful reading of the testimony, that there was.

Both appeals are quashed.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Falls and Sykes

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Sep 26, 1931
156 A. 894 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Falls and Sykes

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Falls et al., Appellants

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Sep 26, 1931

Citations

156 A. 894 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931)
156 A. 894

Citing Cases

Ferree et al. v. Douglas

The errors in the institution of this proceeding, in the caption of the suit, and on the hearing before the…