Court Opinion

ID: 9446124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:46:53.112721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:32.057055
License: Public Domain

BIGGS, Chief Judge
(concurring).
Though I agree with all that Judge GOODRICH has said, the circumstances of this case and the nature of the grounds' asserted by the defendant-appellant as his basis for a new trial suggest that additional background should perhaps be added for the benefit of the reviewing Court.
The defendant-appellant, Williams, takes the position that he was dealt with too hardily by the court below and that the sanctions of the criminal statute imposed on him were excessive in the light of all the circumstances. I think this is not so. It is becoming an unfortunate practice among defendants in criminal proceedings, especially those with prior records, to engage defense counsel to defend them very close to the time of trial, indeed, as here, almost on the last day. This results in delays and sometimes confusion when veniremen have been summonsed and the court has a heavy criminal list. The tactic employed by such defendants is based on the hope that if delays are sufficient their cases somehow will be lost track of or at least cannot be presented effectively. The defendant-appellant here had the benefit, or the detriment, of rather extensive courtroom experience over an extended period of years.1 In compelling him to go to trial at the time set, a day nearly two months following his arraignment and more than three months after the information was returned against him, I am of the opinion that it cannot be asserted successfully that a trial judge of a very busy and overburdened court, with an extensive list of criminal jury trials, as here, abused his discretion.
At the trial the proof of the defendant-appellant’s guilt, largely documentary, was overwhelming. His wilfulness was clearly demonstrated. That the defendant-appellant’s gross income ex*256ceeded the statutory minimum requiring the filing of returns was all but conceded and it seemed to be the fact he had not filed any federal tax returns for some years, including the critical years 1953 and 1954. The inference, I think is irresistible that had he been allowed unlimited time to prepare his defense his counsel could scarcely have defended him better than he did for the defendant-appellant was largely without books and records. The trial court indicated with good reason that he had repeatedly committed perjury while on the stand in his ' own defense. His story as to the sources of his income and the amounts thereof was unbelievable and the jury obviously took that view.
Emphasis, however, is laid on the fact that the defendant-appellant’s motion for a new trial was denied as soon as it was made and that he was sentenced within a few hours following the return by the jury of verdicts of guilty and that there was no pretrial investigation. Though this practice cannot be deemed to be entirely desirable, for ordinarily at least, presentence investigation should be had, I cannot conceive that in this case it worked substantial detriment to the defendant-appellant.
The trial judge afforded the defendant-appellant and his counsel opportunity to make statements prior to the imposition of sentence and statements were made. The defendant-appellant’s evasiveness continued at this critical time. Prior to sentence the trial judge referred to the defendant-appellant’s somewhat extended criminal record in the Courts •of Pennsylvania and of Philadelphia County, making clear that in passing sentence he would have in mind only the defendant-appellant’s convictions. The trial judge cogently noted that he had failed to cooperate with the Internal Revenue Bureau in respect to his civil liabilities for failure to make returns and pay taxes. The trial court then passed a sentence imposing imprisonment upon one count and putting the defendant-appellant on probation on the second count with a substantial fine, and indicated to him that he would have to cooperate with the taxing authorities. As Judge GOODRICH has pointed out there can be no doubt that the trial judge acted within the purview of the law but quite aside from any technical legal view I think that the contention that the defendant-appellant was dealt with too hardily cannot be maintained. Certainly the circumstances are such that this court is not justified in setting aside the judgment of sentence, even if there were a legal basis for doing so.

. The defendant-appellant wag arrested and tried in September 1935 on an indictment for larceny, receiving stolen goods and assault and battery. He was found not guilty. In August 1936 bo was arrested and tried for aggravated assault and battery, mayhem, larceny, and fraudulent conversion. This resulted in a conviction and a sentence of one year’s probation and costs. In May of 1937 be was arrested for assault and battery but this case was nol-prossed. In January 1938 he was indicted for assault and battery and was found not guilty. In November 1940 he was arrested for disorderly conduct and interfering with an officer. The case resulted in an imposition of a $300 peace bond. In June 1941. he was arrested for burglary of an automobile and tried, the trial resulting in a verdict of guilty. A new trial was granted. On the second trial the defendant-appellant was found guilty again and sentenced to 18 months to 3 years imprisonment. In February 1942 he was arrested for assault and battery and resisting arrest. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty and be was put upon probation for one year. In April 1942, he was arrested for conducting a tenement house without a license. He was fined $10 and costs. In May 1945 be was indicted for larceny and receiving stolen goods and was found guilty and a fine of $50.00 was imposed upon him. In June 1945 he was arrested for malicious mischief but was discharged by a Magistrate. In October 1947 he was arrested for disorderly conduct and a $1000 bond was required of him. In 1951 he was indicted for forgery and embezzlement. The disposition of this case did not appear. In April 1953 he was arrested for violation of Section-601 of the Penal Code of Pennsylvania, 18 P.S.Pa. § 4601, for number writing: and conspiracy and was found not guilty.
See pp. 257-275a of the transcript of the proceedings following the return of verdicts by the jury.