HomeMy WebLinkAbout93-1708 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1708 CRIMINAL 1992
V.
CHARGE: APPEAL FROM SUMMARY:
MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS
HARRY J. KAPTON AFFIANT: TPR. ROBERT KROL
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO PA. R.A.P. 1925
OLER, J. - February 1, 1993:
On November 24, 1992, following a trial before the undersigned judge on
summary appeal, the Defendant, who represented himself, was found guilty of speeding
at the rate of 70 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone, in violation of Section
3362(a)(2) of the Vehicle Code.' On that date, he was sentenced to pay the costs of
prosecution, a fine of $55.00, a CAT fund assessment of $30.00, and an Emergency
Medical Services fund assessment of $10.00.2 However, the sentencing order provided
that '[t]he Defendant has been advised that the Court will vacate this sentence if he
files post -verdict motions within 10 days of today's date, said vacation to occur so that
the Court can dispose of any said post -verdict motions." 3
On December 4,1992, Defendant filed a paper entitled "Notice of Motion of Post
Verdict," reading in its entirety: "Judge Wesley Oler, Jr. the Motion for Appeal has
been filed within the specified time limits." In response to this motion, the Court
entered the following Order:
' Order of Court, November 24, 1992 (verdict).
2 Order of Court, November 24, 1992 (sentence).
3 Id.
�.�;" y'
� .x-93
JZZ, e, A.c�
1708 Criminal 1992
AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 1992, the
Defendant having filed a "Notice of Motion of Post Verdict,"
stating in its entire[t]y "Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr. the
Motion for Appeal has been filed within the specified time
limits," the sentence of the Court imposed on November 24,
1992, is VACATED and the Defendant is given 15 days from
the date of this Order to file with the Clerk of Court a
statement as to (a) the nature of the post -verdict motion
filed, (b) the relief requested, and (c) the ground or grounds
relied upon. Failure of the Defendant to timely file such
statement will result in dismissal of the post -verdict
motion.'
On December 23, 1992, Defendant filed a handwritten Notice of Appeal to the
Superior Court "from the order entered in this matter on Nov 24th 1992."' During the
period from December 4,1992, to December 23,1992, the Defendant had not responded
to the Court's invitation to complete the post -verdict motion, nor had the Court taken
additional action upon the motion or reimposed sentence.
In view of the appeal, which is premature, this Court is without jurisdiction to
act further, in the absence of a remand. It is understood that the Commonwealth has
moved to quash the appeal.
4 Order of Court, December 4, 1992.
5 Notice of Appeal, December 23, 1992.
2