231 Pa. Super. 155

Commonwealth v. Council, Appellant.

Submitted September 17, 1974.

Before Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort, and Spaeth, JJ.

*156petition for reargument refused January 17, 1975.

George E. Goldstein, and Goldstein and Rosenblnm, for appellant.

Steven H. Goldblatt, Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

December 11, 1974:

Opinion by

Jacobs, J.,

In this direct appeal from a conviction on a charge of receiving stolen goods1 the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction. We, however, are precluded from reaching the merits of the case in this direct appeal because the appellant did not file post-trial motions in the court below.

“The swift and orderly administration of criminal justice requires that lower courts be given the opportunity to rectify their errors before they are considered on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 458 Pa. 357, 358, 326 A.2d 267, 267-268 (1974). Issues not presented to the trial court in post-verdict motions will not be considered on appeal. Commonwealth v. Staples, 457 Pa. 468, 326 A.2d 317 (1974).

Judgment affirmed.

Commonwealth v. Council
231 Pa. Super. 155

Case Details

Name
Commonwealth v. Council
Decision Date
Dec 11, 1974
Citations

231 Pa. Super. 155

Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!