Opinion by
The appellant, Calvin Davis, was arrested in September of 1969 and charged with murder as a rеsult of his participation in a tavern robbery in which the bartender was killed. The appеllant, who was at all times represented by private counsel, waived a jury trial and plеd guilty to murder generally. Following a degree of guilt hearing, the appellant was found guilty of sеcond-degree murder and sentenced to from ten to twenty years’ imprisonment. No pоst-trial motions were filed.
On January 18, 1971, the appellant filed a petition with this Court for leavе to appeal from his sentence and to proceed in forma pauperis, for appointment of counsel and for a special writ of certiorari. The writ wаs granted and counsel was appointed. This appeal
*371
was initially argued beforе this Court on April 20,1972. The appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that he was denied the benefits of a plea bargain made between his counsel and the prosecuting district attorney, contrary to the decision of this Court in
Commonwealth v. Alvarado,
In accord with our order a hearing was held in May and June of 1972. In October of 1972 the hearing judge filed an opinion which found as a fact that no plea bargain was ever entered into by the district attorney and that no promise of a recommendation for а specific lenient sentence was made. The record has now been returned tо us for final disposition of this appeal.
At this juncture our scope of review is limited to ascertaining whether there are any facts on the record which support the findings of thе hearing judge.
Commonwealth v. Young,
The following exchange took place between the court and the appellant at the timе the original guilty plea *372 was entered: “Q. You further understand that I am not part of the negotiаtions or discussions which the District Attorney and the defense counsel had; do you understand that? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that no matter what has happened between those two, if anything, that it is not binding upon me; dо you understand that? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, has anybody made any promises to you? A. No, sir. Q. Has anybody made аny threats against you? A. No, sir.”
At the hearing on remand the appellant testified that in return for his plea of guilty to murder generally, the prosecuting district attorney promised to recоmmend a sentence of four to fifteen years. According to the appellant, this promise was made in the presence of a Mr. Satterwaite, who worked as an investigator for the appellant’s trial counsel at the time of the alleged bargain. The аppellant also testified that at the same meeting the prosecuting district attorney instructed him to lie and answer in the negative if the judge asked him if any promises had been madе to him.
The assistant district attorney who prosecuted this case testified that, although he wаs unable to recall this case specifically, he was positive that he never made a promise to recommend a specific sentence in a conference with Mr. Satterwaite, who was not an attorney, and that he had never instructed anyonе to commit perjury. Mr. Satterwaite, who could have provided corroboration fоr one of these conflicting stories, died in the period between the alleged plеa bargain and the hearing on remand.
Where the testimony is in conflict the credibility of the witnеsses is within the province of the fact finder— in this case the hearing judge. There is ample evidence on the record to support the hearing judge’s determination that no plea bargain was ever made.
Judgment of sentence affirmed.