# Commonwealth v. DeCaro

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 12, 1982 · 298 Pa. Super. 32

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762359

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Paulette DeCARO, Appellant
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 12, 1982
- **Citations:** 298 Pa. Super. 32; 444 A.2d 160; 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3889
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brosky
- **Judges:** Brosky, Johnson, Popovich
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762359

## Opinion text

BROSKY, Judge,
dissenting:
The majority holds that the fact that the de novo court is bound by the decision of the suppression court in the Municipal Court does not necessitate us finding that the system involved herein is different than that found in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 , 92 S.Ct. 1953 , 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972). I do not agree. I would hold that the suppressibility of presumably critical evidence has been litigated by a different court than that reaching the decision upon which the appellant herein was sentenced and as such that the de novo court has not, in its fullest extent, engaged in a de novo determination. It is not uninfluenced by the decision of the municipal court. Thus, the two-tier system herein is distinguishable from that found in Colten . Accordingly, I would hold that the de novo court is obliged to sentence DeCaro to no more severe a sentence than that she received in the Municipal Court unless it finds there is “objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original (Municipal Court) sentencing proceeding.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 , 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2081 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656, 670 (1969). I would remand to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9762359. Public record. Not legal advice.