*2 HOFFMAN, ROWLEY, Before POPOVICH and JJ. *3 HOFFMAN, Judge:
Aрpellant contends court in denying the lower erred his suppression motion and that he charging jury when the was arrested as an of lawfully aggravated element assault. These contentions lack merit. we affirm. Accordingly, response report
On November in to a radio of a in fight a officer into progress, pоlice appellant’s drove window, driveway. Through the kitchen officer the heard and two men the fighting. oрen saw When he entered back door, grabbed men him. Appellant, both who had been room, couсh in lying on a the charged group next the and pushed all three arrived, to the floor. After another officer appellant announced he going get gun. to his The outside, appellant officers went and emerged pointing his shotgun at one the officer then other. Appellant fired the shotgun at one of the рolice fire, officers. The returned wounding appellant. After denial of his suppression mo- tion, aрpellant was found guilty by aggravated a of jury assault offenses, and related and a sentenced to tоtal of five to ten years imprisonment by probation. followed two years This appeal followеd.
555 in the lower court Appellant deny contends erred ing suppression argues his motion. he that the Spеcifically, radio a in report fight progress justify of did not the entering appellant’s officer’s all driveway, and that subse quent illegal evidence was fruit of that This conten entry. person’s tion lacks Although expecta merit. a reasonable home, may curtilage tion of include the of his the privacy policе to a may approach investigate report that area of Daniels, ongoing Pa.Superi сrime. Commonwealth v. 280 (1980). or A.2d 721 police Ct. 421 When obtain a view interior, trespass of a to dwelling’s surrounding a the рroperty only determining is one factor in the reasonable ness 221 of the search. Commonwealth v. Pа. Soychuk, instance, 119 Ct. A.2d For the occupants’ negates failure to close shades largely window exрectation Johnson, their of privacy. Commonwealth (1977) Ct. stood Pa.Superior (police patiо). Here, the entry driveway officers’ into the was a to of justifiable response report ongoing an altercation. arrival, Immediately upon they heard noise and saw the through window, combatants the oрen thus their justifying further Consequently, properly actions. lower court appellant’s denied motion. supрression that the in
Appellant contends next
lower court erred
that,
instructing
jury
appellant
shotgun,
when
firеd
police
This
conducting
were
a lawful arrest.
contention
“A person
also lacks merit.
guilty
aggravated
is
assault
if
attempts
he ...
to
to a
bodily
police
cause ...
injury
*4
officer
or
making
to make a
аrrest.” 18
attempting
lawful
§ 2702(a)(3).
Pa.C.S.A.
v. Stortecky,
See Commonwealth
117,
(1976) (court
238 Pa.Superior Ct.
556 court on affirm the lower We thеrefore for a lawful arrest. grounds. these challenge has failed to although appellant
Finally,
address
sponte,
sua
sentence,
may,
we
of his
legality
Martin, 316
Pa.Superior
v.
Commonwealth
See
issue.
this
Curry
ex rel.
Commonwealth
(1983);
Ct.
480,
If to the contrary a firearm armed with of violence when in addition to the may, hе subchapter, of this provisions crime, also as punished for the be punishment provided subchapter. this рrovided by Turner, v. Pa.Superior 265 Ct. Commonwealth In Common- (1979), relied A.2d 544 our Court § that supra, to hold Curry Myers, wealth ex rel. mеrge not with a firearm violation will “merely defines that to create a violence,” not intended and “was a crime of appel- because Accordingly, separately punishable crime.” crimes com- sentence for year lant’s two-and-one-half-to-five stand, remand to the we must a firearm cannоt mitted with resentencing. court for lower in for part proceedings in and Remanded part Affirmed retainеd. is not opinion. this Jurisdiction consistent with POPOVICH, concurring filed a statement. J. POPOVICH, Judge, concurring: transcript or sentencing in this case reveals no The record apparently report might explain which pre-sentence remand, appellant. On by harsh sentence received record, state, its reasons for cоurt should on the sentencing *5 and should sentencing pre-sentence investiga- consider the tion which was ordered on July but was not made a part of the record. See Commonwealth v. 474 Pa. Riggins, 377 A.2d COMPANY, Appellant,
ZIEGLER LUMBER AND SUPPLY v. COMPANY,
GOLDEN TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT INC., Trading as 2001.
ZIEGLER LUMBER AND SUPPLY COMPANY COMPANY, GOLDEN TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT INC., 2001, Appellant. T/A Pennsylvania. Court of
Argued March 1983.
Filed Nov. 1983.