*1 рetition post-conviction seeking In the de- relief, principal fendant’s contention inade- is that he was represented quately by trial brief his counsel, alleges in this that he was denied the effec- Court, post-conviction tivе assistance counsel at his hear- ing. surprise This is third and it would counsel, alleges post-conviction petition no one if he in his next that he was denied the effective assistance counsel present appeal. pоst-
We have examined the trial record and the conviction record and conclude that con- petition prop- tentions are devoid of merit and his erly denied. our examination Moreover, of the records represented ably indicates that defendant was coun- very and was fortunate that he was not sel, convicted first-degree murder. Order affirmed. Frye, Appellant.
Commonwealth v. *3 Before C. Mus- 1968. 8, October Bell, J., Argued and Roberts, O’Brien Cohen, Eagen, Jones, manno, JJ. Trial
Anthony Troiano, C. Assistant with Defender, him George appellant. H. Ross, Director,
Charles WatJcms, B. Assistant District Attorney, him Los, with Carol Assistant District Mary Attorney, Robert W. District for Com- Duggan, Attorney, monwéalth, appellee.
Opinion April 23, Me. Chief Justice Bell, 1969:
On found Frye a Edward January 25, 1967, jury en murder second The Court guilty degree. banc defendant’s motions for a new dismissed February Frye arrest of On judgment. the Western Pennsylvania Diagnostic sentenced to than for a less than five nor more Clinic term appeal This followed. years. fifteen and the Robert were victim, Alston, worked as club. bellboys golf and both roommates and Alston of Alston’s night death, On the *4 Ten- bar also their room. a local and had at argued rooming or house testified apartment the samе ants defendant Alston chased argument the during that Afte,r a knife in hand. his the floor with the second defendant and separated by tenants, were men two the floor. De- to their room on third returned Alston then him that Alston attacked and testified fеndant Alston was cut accidentally fight the during that other Common- On the the hand, knife. return to on their third floor the. contends wealth stabbing room defendant stabbed Alston and after the nearby station, ran from the to a service Alston house collapsed. looking for Al- Defendant went where and found him at the service station. ston accompanied police then ambulance to Alston hospital police impression “giving that he unable Alston’s brother.” Alston was Since sought speak, from de- homicide information detectives told them Alston had been stabbed. who fendant, response proved that The Commonwealth defendant, question by you Detective “Did stab to a DiMaria, you responded, truth. if Mаn?” want know “Yes, point warned I At defendant was did it.” Yes, placed ar- and was under of his Constitutional rest. support arguments in
Defendant advances twelve appeal. of his unlawfully arrest that he was
Defendant contends
however,
The record reveals,
without a warrant.
ed
arresting
arrested
time defendant was
that at the
(Alston
felony
committed
had been
officer knew that a
probable
stabbed)
to believe
had
cause
had been
stabbing
de
since
had committed
hand
knife
Alston with a
had chased
fendant
preceding
immediately
stabbing,
ar
and after
volmitwity
that he
to the officer
admitted
had
rest,
circum
these facts and
Under
Alston.
had stabbed
Comm
valid.
a warrant
is
arrest without
an
stancеs
the offense. Commоnwealth v. supra; Goslee, Pa., Commonwealth v. A. Ellsworth, 2d. 249; Commonwealth v. 411 Pa. Bosurgi, 304.
Defendant next an contends there was unlaw- of ful .search in. premises the which he resided, that evidence obtained the search unlawfully during him at the trial. The against reveals, was used récord apartment the not search was however, occupied leased or first defendant but of a owned, visited, floor apartment, occasionally which defendant of stairways landings of passageways, in apart- used common all the building were search premises ment tenants. This of such building not violation of defendant’s a warrant a without no pretrial Constitutional was rights. there Moreover, objection motion this and no suрpress evidence, trial. made at the its admission was of complains of the Court’s denial Defendant also particulars. of shows for bill The record request his' not the Court but made to request below, was Clerk of Courts and the District with the was filed particulars of never submitted The bill was Attorney. Rule for in accordance with approval Court Pro- Rules of Criminal Pennsylvania 221(b) par- of a bill of In any event, granting cedure. lower Court. the discretion is within ticulars provides that “When an appli- Rule 221(c) Moreover, the Court make made, may relief is such cation in the interests justice.” necessary deems orders as it but we 221(b) complied with, Rule only Not in this particulars bill case was find that a further Justice and interests of there was unnecessary error. no reversible - that his Constitutional contends next did not have counsel because violated were Under the facts hearing. the preliminary there is no merit contention. case, law *6 Pennsylvania rel. In ex is well settled. Commonwealth Swilley Maroney, v. 420 Pa. 218 2d we A. 419, 242, (pages 420-421). Pennsylvania, “In said failure of an represented by preliminary accused to be counsel at a (or magistrate’s) hearing inquest, is or at a coroner’s rights, in thе violation of constitutional ab his prejudicial of which sence unusual and circumstances proceedings transform into a critical either these stage. ex rel. v. 420 Pa. Commonwealth Hobbs Russell, v. 215 A. ex McCant 858; 2d Commonwealth rel. 1, 211 460; 418 Pa. Commonwealth Rundle, 394, 427; rel. 211 A. ex Lofton v. Pa. 2d Russell, 517, 321, Butler 416 Pa. Commonwealth ex rel. v. Rundle, 2d rel. 206 A. Commonwealth ex Maisenhelder 283; A. 565. or 414 Pa. 2d No unusual Rundle, 11, prejudicial circumstances existed case.” this Constitutional also contends that his (of rights the wеre violated his confession because police involuntary stabbing) gave was required given Constitutional was without Pennsylvania warnings. of Crim Buie 323 of the Buies pertinent part: timely provides, “If Procedure inal application not made the issue hereunder, ground] admissibility on this be [the confession shall is not defendant, to however, deemed be waived.”* attacking by precluded from this Rule confession voluntarily ground it was not on the at application petition or In or mo no made. this case, hearing by was defend made for a Jackson-Denno tion right consequently prior trial, to ant challenge suppress or its voluntari confession pretrial the voluntari was waived. However, at ness stabbing confession of defendant’s ness jury for determination un- properly submitted * language provision slight of this modification A February 3, promulgated, 1969. effective 323 was Bulo
der
in
adequate instructions.
It
is conceded
culpatory admission
сonfession
defendant was
prior
made without
Esco
of his
under
warning
bedo v.
Arizona,
378 U.S.
and Miranda v.
Illinois,
478,
384 U.S.
as construed and limited
Johnson v.
New
the case of
Jersey,
any or defend- cross-exаmination was seriously limited, of coun- claim of denial of his of assistance right ant’s first an because his perfecting adequate sel appeal, on argue counsel did not feel there was anything It sufficient contention aрpeal. is a answer appeal did take a direct defendant (1) of all before him a review gives thorough now us (2) contentions he now makes numerous able coun- represented he is appeal being sel. sufficien of the question also raises support jury’s finding of the evidence to
cy
hornbook
It is
degree.
of murder in the second
guilty
evidence—
of the
sufficiency
of the
the test
law
circumstantial,
it is direct or
of whether
irrespective
true all the evidence
as
accepting
or both —is whether,
if
upon which
inferences therefrom,
all reasonable
its verdict,
have based
properly
could
jury
believed the
reasonable
prove beyond
in law to
it
is sufficiеnt
crime
crimes
is guilty
that the
doubt
v. Fin
Commonwealth
been convicted.
of which
has
v.
Commonwealth
85;
2d
202 A.
find We affirmed. of sentence Judgment Eagen Mr. Jus- Justice Mr. Cohen, Mr. Justice in the result. concur Roberts tice consid- no part took Musmanno Mr. Justice of case. decision eration 482 Opinion by
.Concurring Mr. Justice O’Brien: I concur the result reached but majority, of disagree with much the rеasoning. although First, I it agree that was error for the court below ¿dmit apart- the evidence seized in the search of the appellant ment which this is building resided, sup- the sole reason that there neither a motion to was of Criminаl Pro- press under Rule 2001 the Rules nor an at to the admission objection cedure the evidence. I with the statement
Second, strongly disagree that “as soon admitted the majority as informed of his constitutional was stabbing, v. U.S. required Miranda ás Arizоna [384 at On the neither (1966)].” Ct. 1602 contrary, S. other advised that any time nor time was he represent be him if he was appointed would lawyer a v. 235 A. Sites, Commonwealth Pa. indigent. does not dis- majority (1967). Although 2d 387 appellant signed written statement, cuss it, I objection. agree into evidence over his admitted was properly the statement was thé court below with motion to for the reason no only but admitted, 324 of the Rules made under Rule timely suppress v. Eckhart, Procedure. Commonwealth Criminal 271 (1968). Pa. 311, opinion. in this joins Jones Mr. Justice Appellant, Baird. Thomas,