*1 proved. properly The wife’s otherwise records were ap employe relating of the condition statement made pears time was at the been recorded to have n falsify either appears no motive to be and there given re upon and when it was or the wife the interne knowledge wife had Furthermore, corded. be her husband, in the statement facts contained give could not statement. cause his condition, hearings not she testified at the As a matter fact, part. This statements at least inconsistent with such including history under was admissible record, 1939, Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act 91(b). May P. L. 28 P.S. section Underhill Superior 2d 857; 185 Pa. Ct. A. Cantalano, Mutual Platt Hancock Insurance v. John Co., Life 66 A. 2d 266; Freedman v. Mutual Insurance Pa. 652, Life 21 A. 2d 81. Co ., Upon careful review of the facts and circum- say cannot that the case, stances of this we Board acted competent evidence introduced without the record say findings that its and we cannot conclusions contrary agree to law. We therefore must were disposition made the court below. Judgment affirmed. Giovengo, Appellant.
Commonwealth v. *2 Argued November 1958. Before J., P. Rhodes, Hirt, Gunther, JJ. and Wright, Ervin, Watkins, absent). J., (Woodside, appellant.
Marjorie for Hanson Matson, appel- Attorney, Eppinger, for George District G. lee. 1958: December Opinion Ervin, J., Frank- March 1955in arrested on burglary charged and County two acts of and
lin presentment April larceny. waived 1955 he guilty. pleas deferred Sentence was entered turned over to the county. in that crimes to answer similar authorities pleas guilty in Franklin At his the time entered represented by Es- C. Hazlett, William he was guilty Following entry quire, deceased. now *3 appellant pleas Allegheny County was sentenced in the Penitentiary not for a term of to Western State the years, 20 than which sentence less 5 nor more than lodged serving. the Detainers were he still penitentiary appellant’s Franklin return to to insure County County the of the termination appellant by July On 1956 filed mail sentence. 27, petition why not to cause for a rule show should County Franklin indict- either be sentenced alleging prosecutions failure ments or the dismissed, of to sentence him within a reasonable the court plea entry guilty. August 30, his after the February ap- discharged. 1956 1957 rule was the pellant applied Supreme Pennsylvania the Court of requesting for a of mandamus the Court to order writ County charges by dismissal of the Franklin reason Supreme delay sentencing. The in Court en- of the petition denying stating a order as not tered an 2113 of a of mandamus: No. case for the issuance writ September District. On 26, Misc. Western Docket, petition appellant 1957 filed a second the Franklin
223
County
requesting
be dis-
indictments
missed. On November
an
filed dis-
order was
7,
missing
petition.
attempted
appeal
He
from
Superior
petition
said order to the
Court but his
appeal
pauperis
payment
in forma
was
without
denied,
filing
Supreme
of a
The
an
fee.
Court denied
allo-
catur: see No.
Misc.
Western District.
Docket,
application
An
for a writ of certiorari was made to the
Supreme Court of the
States
on
United
but denied
March
1958:
March
see No.
eleven months ten after the en pleas try guilty deprives right of his him of his process speedy guaranteed trial and due law as Pennsylvania §9 art. of the I, Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United Consti States *4 tution. In Com. ex rel. Wilhelm v. Morgan, Supreme 123 A. our Court “The 395, 397, said: right temporarily to defer sentence, while the court applies pardon seeks information or the defendant for universally recog or for sufficient is reason, other practice suspension of nized. The an indefinite of sen long vogue been in tence has also this and some other jurisdictions although majority in a of such states, right ground is on the denied, that an indefinite sus- only to a pardon, amounts of sentence
pension
such
248. Where
8 R.C.L.
executive can grant:
sen
impose
to later
recognized
right
practice
its
time of
and the
court,
with
trial
remains
tence
discretion; manifestly,
judicial
a matter
exercise is
sen
impose
abuse thereof
would be an
however,
view of
under any
delay. Hence,
after a great
tence
a
if
within
ever,
must be imposed,
sentence
the law,
opin
In
same
after conviction.”
reasonable
suspen
opinion
said: “In our
every
also
ion the Court
Act of
of the
since the effective date
sentence
sion of
to the
without
provisions,
regard
to its
subject
1911 is
sus
can be
sentence
event,
of the order.
form
in conform
which,
for a reasonable time,
pended only
beyond
we hold cannot extend
the statute,
ity
of
there
imprisonment,
excluding
maximum term
etc.”
motion for new
spent
trial, appeal,
from time
Pa. Superior
v.
Ct.
the defend-
Fox,
In Com.
charge
plead
to the
6, 1916,
guilty
on December
ant,
in violation of
keeping
bawdyhouse
§4.3
provisions
L. 382. Pursuant
to the
P.
Act of 1860,
placed
and
suspended
1911 act the
for a
on probation
year.
January
defendant
in for a violation
was brought
1918 the defendant
on that
her
date sen-
probation
terms of
in the Philadelphia County pris-
months
to nine
tenced
459: “The
said,
pages 458,
In that case we
on.
power
had
to hold convicts for sen-
always
courts have
as
be deemed
advan-
long
may
necessary
as
tence
and in the. meantime
justice
the ends
they
tageous
information
addition to that disclosed
receive
what should be an
respect
appro-
trial with
225 in such . action. . . We find in the nor statute nothing the in which purpose accomplished be its enactment requires us to hold that sentence not be period after if the fact be that the de- probation fendant has pro- violated the conditions implied bation.” 2d
In Com. ex rel. v. Pa. A. Holly Ashe, Mr. Justice now Chief Justice, page Jones, said: “The suggestion right that constitutional an accused to a trial speedy requires that be sen- tenced . . For timely is, true. . unneces- course, in the sary delay sentencing an incarcerated defend- ant, petition for habeas corpus is efficient means for correcting the abuse.” Com. Pa. 82 A. Meyer, Superior Ct. 40,
2d 298, suspended sentence was and the defendant placed probation. No was placed time limit probation period. A imprisonment sentence to over one later held year proper. was The Court stated: “The period probation under the Act exceed cannot the maximum for which a defendant might have been . . .” imprisoned.
Appellant has cited a number of cases from other states which hold an that suspension indefinite of sen- In the tencing illegal. present con- case we do not sider court suspended indefinitely imposi- tion of sentence. The action of the court implied below deferred for the only time necessary disposition of the prosecutions in Allegheny A County. detainer lodged at the penitentiary so that would prisoner be returned immediately to Franklin after completed having the Alle- gheny County sentences. There were rea- many good sons could prompted the Franklin County defer sentence. Undoubtedly the Franklin before County judge, would sentencing, want to know jail spent actually prisoner had much time how *6 County fact Allegheny The mere sentences. than 5 nor more less than of not a sentence definitely imposed anstver years not Avould had been might question. court of The this might date at a later the defendant have recalled might Pardon Board The the sentence. cut doAvn have and thereafter minimum sentence the have reduced by granted Board. parole might Parole the been have judge to Undoubtedly Avanted Franklin the imposition im- Avhether of sentence the knoAVbefore prisoner prisonment or Avhether the had rehabilitated upon imprisonment him. effect had had an adverse experts employed the prisons, are trained modern purpose prisoners purpose studying the of and for of living. teaching isMuch to earn a them honest means accomplished Avith indiA'iduals and little some County sentence Avasdeferred If Franklin others. the presented judge opportunity to to the Avouldbe an period during prisoner’s study made the record the good If had a record and had his confinement. of impose there Avouldbe no need to rehabilitated, been upon him. other hand, the If, a further sentence prisoner indicated that had not bene- record degenerated had further that to release fited but again endanger society a fur- others, him into would imposed. prisoner might The be himself ther sentence beneficiary system might very of a well be Avhieh completion sentencing until the of the term defers prior imprisonment. should It be remembered that purposes sought accomplished to be main one of the improve pris- imprisonment is to habits punish merely him not for his oner and offenses. imprisonment accomplished prior period proper If a impose necessary be not a further would results, imprisonment. prior if other hand, im- prisonment accomplished had not the desired results, imprisonment might necessary. further be deemed system helps prisoner Such a only not but it also great society works a benefit to as a whole. Pennsylvania We conclude that in a sentence suspended period equal
be or deferred for a the maximum might term for which the defendant provided proper present been are sentenced, reasons justify delay. April also contends that the Act provides L.P. as 19 PS amended, §241, guilty plea
that a sentence on a
shall be
forth-
was violated.
with,
The word “forthwith”
not
does
*7
require
imposition
the immediate
of sentence:
ex
Com.
Superior
rel. Carter v.
168 Pa.
77
Ashe,
Ct. 214, 216,
opinion
A. 2d 457. It is our
that the word “forthwith”
directory
mandatory.
as used in the
is
act
and not
jurisdictions
Courts in other
have reached a similar
12
conclusion: State v.
N.
Anderson,
A. 2d
J.
97
461,
v.
404;
District
Rose
67 Utah
Court,
Pa.
A.
Ct.
2d
Com. v.
172 Pa.
76,
interlocutory
rior Ct.
given credit original from date his arrest to the date when over to the authori- he was turned is answered the Act of argument May ties. This . “. . provides: P. L. 19 PS §894, 28, 1937, shall then be person undergoing unless the sentenced under a sentence other imprisonment offense or in which case the said sentence offenses, run be either from shall begin computed, thereof or from the imposition expiration date sentences, such other sentence or as the court shall, *8 direct.” case present its the court discretion, below directed the sentence should be- expressly of the sentences which expiration gin appel- lant was then serving. of sentence affirmed.
Judgment Dissenting Opinion J.: Weight, justice is delayed Justice denied. Article Sec- I, of our tion of the Constitution Commonwealth guar- persons speedy public antees to all trial”. accused “a required: provision timely this Under Commonwealth, Holly ex rel. Ashe, April pleas guilty A. 2d 244. entered July petitioned 1955. On the lower he why court for a cause he should not be rule show prosecutions sentenced or the dismissed. This rule Petition, should have been made absolute. Cf. Rouzer 71 & 44. It had, D. C. was not until after petition on March filed a in the United States 18,1958, following day District Court removed penitentiary County. from the Franklin Sentences imposed delay on March were of almost 21, 1958, arguendo Assuming years. original three that the de improper, appellant’s ferment was not view of re peated efforts thereafter to have sentences long deny right. error so clear his constitutional very strongly years I that three feel is an unreasonable period of time under the circumstances of this case. I would therefore vacate the sentences.
Genkinger City, Appellant. v. New Castle