From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Com. v. Burgess

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 31, 1983
500 Pa. 224 (Pa. 1983)

Summary

finding no error in consecutive sentences for first-degree murder and PIC

Summary of this case from Com. v. Camacho

Opinion

Submitted December 8, 1982.

Decided January 31, 1983.

Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, 1031 and 1033 May Term, 1979, Albert F. Sabo, J.

Gilbert J. Scutti, Philadelphia (court-appointed), for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals Div., Asst. Dist. Atty., Steven Cooperstein, Asst. Dist. Atty., for appellee.

Before ROBERTS, C.J., and NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, HUTCHINSON and ZAPPALA, JJ.


OPINION


In this direct appeal from his judgments of sentence, appellant raises four issues: 1) the suppression court erred in failing to suppress his confession; 2) the lower court erred in failing to sustain an objection to the prosecutor's summation; 3) the lower court erred in instructing the jury that it could infer malice and specific intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of another's body; and 4) the lower court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for his convictions of possessing an instrument of crime and murder of the first degree. We have reviewed the record and find these contentions to be without merit.

Accordingly, the judgments of sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

Com. v. Burgess

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 31, 1983
500 Pa. 224 (Pa. 1983)

finding no error in consecutive sentences for first-degree murder and PIC

Summary of this case from Com. v. Camacho
Case details for

Com. v. Burgess

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Tyrone BURGESS, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 31, 1983

Citations

500 Pa. 224 (Pa. 1983)
455 A.2d 631

Citing Cases

Com. v. Camacho

Even if Appellant preserved his claim in a Rule 2119(f) statement, his issue would not raise a substantial…

Com. v. Button

It does not require a quantum leap in logic to find that § 9711 and § 9757 of the Sentencing Act are in pari…