From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Moore

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 12, 1952
172 Pa. Super. 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952)

Opinion

September 29, 1952.

November 12, 1952.

Appeals — Criminal law — Sentence suspended — Order directing payment of costs — Contributing to delinquency of minor — Assault with intent to ravish — Indecent assault.

1. Where a defendant is convicted of a criminal offense and sentence is suspended, there is no judgment to support an appeal.

2. It was Held that, while such rule was not an inflexible one and would yield in exceptional cases to prevent injustice to a defendant, the facts of the instant case did not fall within any of the recognized exceptions.

3. The liability of a defendant for costs is not a part of the penalty imposed by the statutes which provide for the punishment of the offenses of assault with intent to ravish, indecent assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor; and an order directing the defendant to pay the costs of prosecution and suspending sentence is not a sentence within the meaning of the law.

4. Where it appeared that defendant was indicted on bills charging him with assault with intent to ravish, indecent assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor; that he was found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor; and that the court directed defendant "to pay the costs of prosecution, and further sentence suspended"; it was Held that defendant's appeal should be quashed.

Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS, ARNOLD and GUNTHER, JJ.

Appeal, No. 167, April T., 1952, from sentence of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Butler County, June T., 1951, No. 2, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Joseph Moore. Appeal quashed.

Indictments charging defendant with assault with intent to ravish, indecent assault, and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Before PURVIS, P.J.

Verdict of guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor; defendant directed to pay costs of prosecution, and sentence suspended. Defendant appealed.

Willis A. MacDonald, for appellant.

No argument was made nor brief submitted for appellee.


Argued September 29, 1952.


Defendant was tried in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Butler County on three bills of indictment which charged (1) assault with intent to ravish; (2) indecent assault; and (3) contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was acquitted on the first two charges, and found guilty of the third — contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The court thereupon directed the defendant "to pay the costs of prosecution, and further sentence suspended." Defendant has appealed.

The appeal will be quashed. We have held that where a defendant is convicted of a criminal offense and sentence is suspended, there is no judgment to support an appeal. Com. v. Mellon, 81 Pa. Super. 20; Com. v. Lipschutz, 89 Pa. Super. 142; Com. v. Torr, 111 Pa. Super. 178, 169 A. 238. See Note, 126 A.L.R. 1210. While this rule is not an inflexible one and will yield in exceptional cases to prevent injustice to a defendant ( Com. v. Trunk, 311 Pa. 555, 167 A. 333; Com. v. Ragone, 317 Pa. 113, 176 A. 454; Com. v. Haines, 130 Pa. Super. 196, 196 A. 621; Com. v. Tluchak, 166 Pa. Super. 16, 21, 70 A.2d 657), the facts of this case do not fall within any of the recognized exceptions. See Com. v. Sarricks, 161 Pa. Super. 577, 56 A.2d 323.

Furthermore, the order of the court directing payment of costs does not save defendant's appeal. In Com. v. Cauffiel, 97 Pa. Super. 202, at page 205 (appeal refused 298 Pa. 319), under like circumstances, this Court said: "The orders of the court directing the defendant to pay the costs of prosecution and suspending sentence were not sentences within the meaning of the law: Com. v. Hamel, 44 Pa. Super. 464; Com. v. Dunleavy, 16 Pa. Super. 380. The liability of a defendant for costs is not a part of the penalty imposed by the statutes which provide for the punishment of these offenses. Such liability is an incident of the judgment, arising out of our statutes providing for the payment of costs in criminal proceedings: PORTER, J., in Com. v. Hamel, supra. Until there is a sentence upon a bill no appeal lies."

The appeal is quashed.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Moore

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 12, 1952
172 Pa. Super. 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth v. Moore, Appellant

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 12, 1952

Citations

172 Pa. Super. 27 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952)
92 A.2d 238

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Soudani

(2) Appellant's second request is based upon the assertion that he is indigent, that he has been incarcerated…

Commonwealth v. Litman

Defendant was thereupon discharged. See Com. v. Moore, 172 Pa. Super. 27, 92 A.2d 238; Com.ex rel. Kosele v.…