226 Pa. Super. 30 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1973
Opinion by
The appellant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial judge, Honorable Nicholas Cipriani, sitting without a jury, should have suppressed evidence of a pistol seized without a search warrant.
Although the appellant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress the weapon used in the crime, he contends that the gun introduced at trial should have been suppressed. Appellant asserts he did not file a motion to suppress because defense counsel was unaware that a gun had been seized. The evidence adduced before the lower court refutes this allegation. Several days after the robbery, the appellant appeared at the police station and sought to have his gun returned to him. Rule 323(b) of Pa. R. Crim. P. states that “[ujnless the opportunity did not previously exist, or the interests of
Thus, the judgment of sentence is affirmed.
After a careful reading of the record, the appellant’s other contention is dismissed as being without merit.