Opinion
November 13, 1962.
December 12, 1962.
Criminal Law — Psychological examination of defendant — Other contentions in support of new trial.
1. On appeal by defendant following conviction of armed robbery, in which it appeared that defendant alleged, in support of a motion for a new trial, that he did not have adequate counsel, that he was arrested without a warrant (although he was apprehended while fleeing from the scene of the crime), that he was detained an unreasonable period of time before receiving a preliminary hearing, that he was not arraigned in accordance with law, that he was not permitted to personally speak out against certain irregularities during the course of the trial, that he was denied the right to have certain exceptions noted, that the court below erred in the admission of a statement offered by the Commonwealth, that it erred in the rejection of certain defense witnesses, that it erred in its charge to the jury, and that it erred in imposing sentence immediately after the verdict; and that the court below, holding that defendant's contentions were without merit, dismissed the motion; it was Held that the judgment of the court below should be affirmed.
2. Defendant's further contention that the court below erred in refusing to provide him with a psychological examination prior to trial, in that such examination might have unearthed a mental disorder that might have prevailed at the time of the commission of the robbery, was Held to be without merit, where the record showed that two psychologists were appointed by the court below immediately after the trial and that they examined defendant and reported to the court that he was then not psychotic and that they did not believe that he had been psychotic at the time of the robbery.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 273, April T., 1962, from judgment of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Westmoreland County, April T., 1961, No. 1, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Norman Cortez Gray, Jr. Judgment affirmed.
Same case in court below: 28 Pa. D. C. 2d 588.
Indictment charging defendant with armed robbery and violation of the Uniform Firearms Act. Before O'CONNELL, P.J.
Verdict of guilty and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
Norman Cortez Gray, Jr., appellant, in propria persona.
Frank Ezerski, Assistant District Attorney, and Richard E. McCormick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Submitted November 13, 1962.
The appellant was convicted of armed robbery of the First National Bank of Herminie from which he stole $22,900. He was sentenced to the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh for a term of 8 to 16 years. He appealed alleging twelve grounds for a new trial. We have examined these allegations and the record, and we are satisfied that the appellant had a fair trial. There is no doubt concerning his guilt. We shall affirm on the opinion of the court below with a short additional comment.
The appellant claims as error the refusal of the court below to provide him with a psychological examination prior to trial "for such an examination, had it been granted, may have unearthed a mental disorder that may have prevailed at the time of the commission of the robbery." The record shows that two psychologists were appointed by the court immediately after the trial and that they examined the appellant and reported to the court that he was not then psychotic and that they did not believe he had been psychotic at the time of the robbery. As no reference to this examination and report was made in the opinion of the court below, we thought it should be noted here. All the other reasons assigned for a new trial worthy of consideration were disposed of in the court's opinion.
The judgment of sentence is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge JOHN M. O'CONNELL, reported in 28 Pa. D. C.2d 588.