Criminal law — Merger of offenses — Robbery of several victims — Consolidation of indictments — Opportunity of defendant to speak before sentence — Habeas corpus proceeding — Necessity of hearing.
1. The robbery of separate victims, even though it involves a series of steps in the same transaction, constitutes separate offenses for which separate sentences may be imposed upon conviction.
2. In this case, in which it appeared that defendant and others robbed at gun point a number of persons, and that defendant was tried upon indictments charging robbery, conspiracy, larceny and receiving stolen goods, and unlawful possession of firearms, all arising from the same series of acts, it was Held that the consolidation of the bills of indictment at the trial was within the discretion of the trial judge.
3. It was Held that the trial judge did not commit reversible error in not asking defendant whether or not he had anything to say before sentence was pronounced.
4. The grant of a hearing upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not necessary where no factual issues are presented by the petition.
Submitted March 19, 1958.
OPINION PER CURIAM, April 16, 1958:
The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge HAGAN of the Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Philadelphia County, as reported in 11 Pa. D. C. 2d 739.