Summary
In Shoemaker, the defendant contended that his sentence should have been set aside because the pre-sentence report showed that he had been arrested fourteen times, nine of which were after the arrest for the charges on which the defendant was about to be sentenced, but did not state what dispositions had been made of the arrests.
Summary of this case from Com. v. AllenOpinion
Argued November 22, 1974.
Decided July 7, 1975.
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Bucks County, Criminal Division, at No. 1936 of 1971, John Justus Bodley, J.
Richard R. Fink, Asst. Public Defender, Doylestown, for appellant.
Stephen B. Harris, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., M. J. King, Doylestown, Alan M. Rubenstein, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kenneth G. Biehn, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Before JONES, C. J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY and MANDERINO, JJ.
OPINION OF THE COURT
We granted appellant's petition for allowance of appeal from the order of the Superior Court to determine whether, under the procedure established by the Act of December 22, 1965, P.L. 1187, § 1, 19 P. S. § 890 (Supp. 1974), a sentencing court may, in imposing sentence, consider a defendant's arrest record which does not indicate the disposition resulting from the arrests. Our review of the record, however, discloses that this issue was not preserved for appellate review by a timely objection in the sentencing court. We will not, therefore, consider appellant's claim. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, n. 3, 331 A.2d 213, 215 n. 3 (1975); Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Pa. 253, 261, 328 A.2d 507, 511 (1974); Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974). On this record the order of the Superior Court must be affirmed.
Order affirmed.
NIX, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.