HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-1826 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1826 CRIMINAL 1992
V. CHARGE: APPEAL FROM SUMMARY:
MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS
MICHAEL LYNN SHATTO AFFIANT: TPR. GREGORY EDGIN
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S POST -TRIAL MOTION
BEFORE OLER, J.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 34 day of February, 1993, upon consideration of Defendant's
Post -Verdict Motion in Arrest of Judgment and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying Opinion, the Motion is DENIED, and Defendant is directed to appear
for sentencing at the call of the District Attorney.
BY THE COURT,
Thomas A. Placey, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
Michael L. Shatto, Pro Se
116 S. Front Street, Apt. 4
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
:rc
0
J.
COMMONWEALTH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
1826 CRIMINAL 1992
V. CHARGE: APPEAL FROM SUMMARY:
MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS
MICHAEL LYNN SHATTO AFFIANT: TPR. GREGORY EDGIN
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S POST -TRIAL MOTION
BEFORE OLER, J.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
Oler, J.
Defendant was found guilty following a summary appeal trial of speeding at the
rate of 80 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone, in violation of Section 3362(a)(2)
of the Vehicle Code.' At his request, he was sentenced immediately,' subject to the
stipulation that the sentence would be vacated if the Defendant filed a timely post -
verdict motion.' He did so in the form of a Motion in Arrest of Judgment,' and his
sentence was vacated for the purpose of consideration of the motion.'
By Order of Court dated January 4,1993, a briefing schedule on the motion was
established, with Defendant's brief to be filed on or before January 22, 1993.8 The
Order specifically advised the Defendant that "[a]ny issue not briefed by the Defendant
' Act of June 17, 1976, P.L. 162, §1, 75 Pa. C.S. §3362(a)(2); Order of Court, December 1,
1992; Trial N.T. 17 (hereinafter N.T. _).
' The Defendant was sentenced to pay the costs of prosecution, a fine of $75.00, an
Emergency Medical Services fund assessment of $10.00, and a CAT fund assessment of $40.00.
Order of Court, December 1, 1992; N.T. 21.
3 Id.
' Defendant's motion was filed on December 11, 1992.
5 Order of Court, December 14, 1992. The motion was, in part, handwritten, and is legible
in some, but not all, respects.
6 Order of Court, January 4, 1993.
1826 Criminal 1992
will be considered waived in accordance with Cumberland County Rule of Procedure
210-7."'
No brief was filed by the Defendant. On January 25, 1993, the Commonwealth
filed a motion to dismiss the Defendant's post -verdict motion, noting that "[t]he issues
raised in defendant[']s partially illegible Motion but not briefed are deemed
abandoned."'
Evidence at the trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth,'
was to the effect that on July ll, 1992, at 4:00 p.m. on Interstate Route 81 in Hampden
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, State Trooper Gregory Edgin clocked
a Pontiac Grand Am driven by the Defendant at 80 miles per hour for one mile, in a
55 mile -per -hour zone.10 A proper certificate of accuracy for the speedometer in the
trooper's vehicle, issued by an approved testing station, was presented by the
Commonwealth.) l
The Defendant's failure to brief the issues in his motion in arrest of judgment
' Id. Cumberland County Rule of Procedure 210-7 provides that "[i]ssues raised, but not
briefed, shall be deemed abandoned."
s Commonwealth's Motion to Dismiss Post -Trial Motions, filed January 25, 1993.
' See Commonwealth v. Leatherbury, 322 Pa. Super. 222, 469 A.2d 263 (1983).
io N.T. 4-7.
" N.T. 6-7. The Defendant, who represented himself, maintained that he had been driving
60 to 65 miles per hour. N.T. 14-15.
2
1826 Criminal 1992
must be considered a waiver of those issues. In addition, on the merits the evidence
was clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict, and the Court is unaware of any defect on
the face of the record or other ground which would justify the granting of the motion
in arrest of judgment. For these reasons, the following Order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this3nwl day of February, 1993, upon consideration of Defendant's
Post -Verdict Motion in Arrest of Judgment and for the reasons stated in the
accompanying Opinion, the Motion is DENIED, and Defendant is directed to appear
for sentencing at the call of the District Attorney.
Thomas A. Placey, Esq.
Assistant District Attorney
Michael L. Shatto, Pro Se
116 S. Front Street, Apt. 4
Wormleysburg, PA 17043
:rc
BY THE COURT,
3