HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-0535 MISCELLANEOUSCOMMONWEALTH
RODNEY LEE THOMAS
$2318.00 U.S. CURRENCY
(1) ONE MOTOROLA PAGER,
FM TSR WIRELESS,
SERIAL NUMBER UNKNOWN
(1) ONE ERICSSON CELLULAR
PHONE, SERIAL NO. 924-EJBQSP
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-0535 MISCELLANEOUS
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., August 29, 2001
A forfeiture hearing in connection with the above assets was held before this
Court on June 8, 2001. Rodney Lee Thomas (hereinafter "respondent") appeared pro se.
At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's case, the respondent attempted to
present a written statement from his mother. ~ Since his mother was not present to be
cross-examined, we would not accept the document into evidence.2 However, we did
explain to the respondent that he could testify as to how the assets came into his
possession.3 He declined to do so.4
Although given the opportunity, the respondent neither presented evidence nor
cross-examined the Commonwealth's witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, we
were satisfied that the Commonwealth had sustained its burden of proving that the money
was furnished in exchange for a controlled substance and that the pager had been used to
Notes of Testimony, p. 23.
Notes of Testimony, pp. 23-24.
Notes of Testimony, p. 24.
Notes of Testimony, pp. 24-25.
2000-0535 MISCELLANEOUS
facilitate violations of the controlled substance act. See Commonwealth v. Marshall 548
Pa. 495, 698 A.2d 576 (1997). Therefore, we entered an order forfeiting the assets.
On June 19, 2001, respondent filed a timely appeal. On August 8, 2001, we
ordered respondent to file a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal in
accordance with Pa. Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).5 Since respondent has failed
to file the concise statement as directed, we are not in a position to file a more thorough
explanation of the reasons for our order or rulings.
DATE
Edward E. Guido, J.
Doreena Craig Sloan, Esquire
For the Commonwealth
Rodney Lee Thomas, Pro Se
:sld
s It should be noted that we were never served with a copy of the Notice of Appeal. Consequently, we were
not aware that an appeal had been filed until August 8, 2001.
2