This is the case of Commonwealth v. Smith from 2005, where at sentencing, the Commonwealth offered the following items into evidence: a certified court document from Dauphin County detailing Michael Smith's 1980 conviction in Pennsylvania for which she received a sentence of 1 to 5 years at Camp Hill Prison; a certified court document from Gaston County, North Carolina detailing Michael Smith's 1987 conviction in North Carolina for which you received a 14 year prison sentence; an FBI "rap sheet" from Michael Smith which was received by Lititz police after they submitted defendants fingerprints for identification; and an NCIC "rap sheet" detailing Michael Smith's criminal history. The prosecutor carefully cross-referenced the information set out in each document, which led to the reasonable conclusion that all the documents concern the same person.
That person of course was the defendant Michael Smith. The defendant drew attention to the fact that some of the FBI fingerprint classification numbers for Michael Smith in the 1980 Pennsylvania conviction were different from some of the FBI fingerprint classification numbers from Michael Smith in the 1987 North Carolina conviction. But although some of the individual classification numbers for each fingerprint varied, the FBI number assigned to defendant was the same for all offenses. Therefore, the court concluded, according to the FBI records the Michael Smith arrested and convicted in this case is the same Michael Smith arrested and convicted in Dauphin County in 1980 and in Gaston County, North Carolina in 1987.
Further, a number of facts attributed to the Michael Smith with the prior convictions were confirmed through defendant's interaction with police, courts staff and probation department personnel in connection with the present case. These facts include defendant's place of birth, defendant's residence at Camphill prison in 1981, defendant's return to North Carolina at the time the North Carolina crimes were committed and an identifying tattoo on defendant's arm. The court in this case was satisfied with the trial court in that it believed it properly and correctly found the Commonwealth had met its burden of establishing the defendants prior criminal history and convictions and past violent crimes by a preponderance of the evidence.
Your Lehigh County criminal lawyer must review your "rap sheet" with you. Your prior criminal history will be provided as part of the Commonwealth's discovery in the case.
One final note, in a Superior Court case called Commonwealth v. Whisnant from 1990, it was determined that if a defendant contests the accuracy of a record of previous convictions, the court my schedule a hearing where the Commonwealth and the defendant must submit evidence regarding the previous convictions.