*2 LIPEZ, JOHNSON, and JJ. Before WATKINS JOHNSON, Judge:
This
an
from the denial of Appellant’s petition
(PCHA).
filed
to the Post Conviction
Act1
Hearing
pursuant
while
the Public Defender’s Of-
represented by
Appellant,
kill,
a
of assault with intent to
fice, was found guilty by jury
a
assault and
aggravated
battery
assault by
prisoner,
the denial of
Following
post-verdict
assault and battery.
sentenced, which
of sen-
motions,
judgment
was
Appellant
the Superior
tence was affirmed
curiam
Court. Com-
per
by
Delker,
(1975).
We find the instant situation to be identical to that nearly in Commonwealth v. Wright,
(1977), where the court stated:
A PCHA petitioner
ineffective
alleging
assistance of
not be
may
represented
from the
same office as the
ineffective
allegedly
attorney, regard-
less of the fact that one started working there after the
*3
other left. The later attorney,
reason of his association
with the
office,
same
still has an appearance of a conflict
of interest
his
threatening
of zealous
duty
advocacy.
Id.,
We therefore remand this case for of appointment other than a public defender. Do not retain jurisdiction.
WATKINS, J., files a dissenting opinion. WATKINS, Judge, dissenting: I dissent and would affirm the Order of the court below. The defender public who was the defendant’s trial counsel represented the defendant eight years prior to the instant That proceeding. attorney retired from voluntarily Public Defender’s Office six years prior this proceeding and has not been remotely connected with that office since time. Such absence lengthy should eliminate any of appearance of a impropriety present member of the public defender’s office arguing ineffectiveness of counsel on ap- peal. each district in should have
Perhaps judicial Pennsylvania two defender’s offices which are separate public totally distinct from one another. Then an from Public I could represent Defender’s Office criminal de- indigent fendants at trial and one from Public Defender’s Office II could defendants on when represent indigent they ineffective assistance of the Public Defender’s Office allege I course, trial counsel. Of the cost of all this would be done at the I taxpayer’s expense. believe that the majority goes too far in a defendant’s a non-exis- rights against I tent conflict. would hold that no conflict of interest exists
in the instant case. SATCHELL, Appellant.
Derrick Dec.