![]() ![]() On appeal, Postie presents the following issues for our review: 1) Did the trial court err when it denied suppression of statements made by and cell phone where police, lacking probable cause and acting outside of their territorial jurisdiction, seized and subjected him to a custodial interrogation, coercing his statement by confronting him with illegally seized items? 2) Did the trial court err and deny due process by not conducting a hearing to address Petition to proceed in a self-representative role? 3) Did the trial court err when it denied Motion to dismiss the conspiracy charges pursuant to section 110 of the Pennsylvania Crimes Code? 4) Did the trial court err by sentencing for multiple conspiracy charges, burglary and the act in which the burglarious entry resulted in as felony 1's where the facts only supported felony 2's, and by improperly failing to credit for time spent in custody prior to trial? 5) Did the trial court abuse it's discretion by relying on a deficient pre-sentence report during sentencing and then failing to state its reason on the record? 6) Was denied due process when the prosecuting authorities failed to provide a video of the custodial interrogation?īrief for Appellant at 4 (some capitalization omitted). #MAZAIKA COAL CO PRO#This Court granted Postie's Application, after which Postie filed a pro se Amended Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement, and the trial court filed an Amended Rule 1925(a) Opinion. In response, Postie filed a pro se Application for relief with this Court, requesting that we grant him permission to file an Amended Rule 1925(b) Concise Statement with the trial court. 1925(b) Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, the trial court filed its Pa.R.A.P. Following Postie's filing of a Notice of Appeal, and a pro se Pa.R.A.P. ![]() See Trial Court Opinion, 3/25/14, at 1-5.Īt the close of trial, the jury convicted Postie of the above-mentioned offenses. 1925(a) Opinion, which we incorporate herein by reference. The trial court set forth the procedural history and relevant facts underlying this appeal in its Pa.R.A.P. 65.37įrederick Andrew Postie ("Postie"), pro se, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed after a jury convicted him of four counts each of burglary, criminal trespass, theft by unlawful taking, and receiving stolen property, as well as two counts of criminal conspiracy. NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |