Court Opinion

ID: 9759638
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:23:13.061622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:02.939731
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Rhodes, P. J.:
I fully agree with the Court’s opinion and the conclusion reached. However, I deem it advisable to refer to one matter which has not been discussed as the question was not raised. In order that the Court’s opinion may not be misconstrued as a precedent, I think it appropriate to point out that this is a case which falls within the exception to the general rule that appeals cannot be taken in criminal cases prior to judgment of sentence or some other final disposition. An exception is made where the circumstances are unusual and justice requires the exercise of appellate review at an intermediate stage of the proceedings. See Com. v. Fox, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 295, 296, 124 A. 2d 628, and cases cited. In Com. v. Trunk, 311 Pa. 555, 565, 167 A. 333, 337, Mr. Justice Schaffer, speaking for the Supreme Court, said: “While it may be true generally that appeals may not be taken in criminal proceedings where judgment of sentence has not been passed, this rule should not be held one of universal application. There are instances where great injustice would thereby be done to defendants.” Speaking of the exception to the rule that an appeal may be had only from judgment of sentence, President Judge Eel*549lek said, iii Com. ex rel. Paige v. Smith, 130 Pa. Superior Ct. 536, 542, 198 A. 812, 815: “. . . The extent of that modification has not been exactly stated, but it should be applied to cases where the quashing of such an appeal might work injustice to the defendant.”
In the present case, on bill of indictment No. 404 the court suspended sentence, ordered restitution to the Medical Service Association of $100, ordered defendant to pay the costs and $1,000 to the County of Philadelphia, and placed defendant on probation for two years. On each of the other bills sentence was suspended and defendant was ordered to pay the costs ,of prosecution and $100 to the Medical Service Association. Although no formal sentence has been imposed,1 defendant on the record stands convicted of a felony. Substantive review of the record discloses that the convictions cannot be sustained under the Penal Code. A grave injustice to defendant would result if the appeals were quashed. Defendant would have felony convictions, admittedly invalid, remaining indefinitely upon the record. All the convictions were properly considered on the merits and reversed. Defendant was thereupon discharged.
The present case is to be distinguished from Com. v. Elias, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 137, 140 A. 2d 341, where we quashed the appeal from a suspended sentence, as no injustice thereby resulted to defendant. The same is true of Com. v. Heintz, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 331, 337, 126 A. 2d 498. In both cases we reviewed the record.

 See Com. v. Moore, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 27, 92 A. 2cl 238; Com. ex rel. Kosele v. Keenan, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 461, 116 A. 2d 314.