*1 “complete regular” their form. We need not ad- dress, therefore, the effect of properly completed exemp- certificates, present tion since none are in the instant case.
Taxpayer’s final contention penalties is that as it, against 7266, sessed under 72 P.S. should be abated § to 72 pursuant provides P.S. which that penalties abated, or “may part, be waived whole or where the has petitioner faith, established that he has acted in good negligence without with no intent to defraud.” Al in the though adjustments penalties assessed may be re of our quired holding view that certain items held taxable by the court below were properly subject to the public exclusion, a utility complete penalties waiver of the is not required. Taxpayer, large multi-state construction con experienced tractor in doing public utilities, work for failed returns, to file the tax required 7266(a) see 72 P.S. § return), for failure to file (penalty failed to pаy tax on portions valid, assessments that it conceded to be failed to keep appropriate records of thoroughness to aid in liabilities, determining tax etc. circumstances, Under these cannot say we that the assessment of penalties was improp er. reversed,
Order and case remanded for proceedings con- sistent this opinion. A.2d Pennsylvania, Appellant,
COMMONWEALTH of
v. HAGOOD, Appellee. Robert Lee Supreme Pennsylvania. May
Submitted 1987. Decided Oct. 1987. Reargument Denied Jan. 1988. *2 Lewis, Okonieski, A.
Richard Dist. A. Atty., Dep- Yvonne uty Dist. for Atty., appellant. Socha, Moffett,
Francis M. Harrisburg, Richаrd F. for appellee. NIX, C.J., LARSEN, FLAHERTY,
Before zappala McDermott, hutchinson, PAPADAKOS, JJ. THE
OPINION OF COURT FLAHERTY, Justice. granted
We the Commonwealth’s petition for allowance of appeal to consider the propriety Superior Court’s order vacating the PCHA court’s dismissal of appellee’s third without a hearing, and remanding an evidentiary hearing.
The lengthy procedural history appellee’s case is as fоllows. Appellee was convicted of murder of the first 4, 1973, degree on April connection stabbing with the death of one Yingling, Walter in Harrisburg. His direct appeal which was filed with this Court was quashed be- *3 сause of noncompliance with our rules relating to the ser- however, vice of the notice of appeal; the appeal was later reinstated. In appeal, thаt appellee challenged the suffi- evidence, of the ciency the adequacy of the charge regard- ing accomplice and trial testimony, counsel’s effectiveness for inadequately requesting an accomplice charge. The challenge failed, and we affirmed the sentence, judgment curiam, per Commonwealth v. Hagood, Pa. (1977). A.2d 693
Before his аppeal reinstated, to this Court was appellee filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus federal court. petition This was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
After his unsuccessful direct appeal, appellee again sought relief in the federal forum. There he raised sub- the stantially same issues as were raised in his direct appeal. That wаs also denied.
In
filed
appellee
his first
PCHA
wherein he
again alleged trial counsel’s ineffectiveness.
In
peti-
this
tion, counsel’s assistance was assailed
failing
for
to make
proper investigation
a potential
witness;
alibi
however,
had
testimony
already
trial
established
own
appellee’s
particular
recall
he was with this
could not
whether
appellee
Thus, thе
evening
of the homicide.
on the
witness
affirmed,
hearing,
a
and we
Common-
denied without
was
(1980).
that if
believed
Commonwealth’s evidence “the
made
degree
has
out first
murder.”
The
this petition
of Common Pleаs dismissed
without a
Court
of
hearing,
appeal,
panel
Superior
also.
a
Court re-
On
claim,
Pa.Super. 603,
manded for a
on the first
The Post Conviction Pa.C.S.A. et seq., expresses preference a clear it be that used as a vehicle to secure review of convictions only once. 9545(c) provides: Speсifically, § person desiring to Any subchapter obtain relief under this shall set forth in the all his then available grounds for such relief for any particular sentence he is currently and he serving shall be entitlеd to one only each crime. The failure to issue in raise any the shall be right deemed a waiver of to any presentation future another containing evening, because he said he сouldn’t recollect it. I think later he day, said he did remember he was in the bar earlier the afternoon, morning you. or in the but he not is sure. I leave it for sure____ My impression really saying that he was is he wasn't Thеn, response objection to defense counsel’s that the court had given summary prosecution’s more his attention in to the evidence evidence, judge charged: than defense’s thе simpl[e] perhaps The defense is a one. It is the defense he there, says can make. He he wasn’t and he doesn’t have number testify, really very of witnesses to so I couldn’t comment much. I еssence, simply you, you told what he said. But I do not want any any feeling that I feel have the Court has about the matter —that my responsibility. because that is you not And even think if I did, you thought I you you do—and tell I dо not—but if I should not on, well, Judge decide the case I wonder what the thinks. Your responsibility is to decide it on the facts. course, appellee’s petitions 3. Of have all raised issues in context of the “layered” prescribed claims of ineffectiveness in Commonwealth v. Hubbard, (1977). Appellee 472 Pa. repre- A.2d 687 is here attorney. sented his seventh
345 and could have for relief were available grounds presented. been from provide of the Act is to relief purpose
The stated
process
without due
of
imposed
and sentences
convictions
9542,
conviction
law,
prior post
42
not review of
Pa.C.S.A. §
Thus,
serving sentences
persons currently
proceedings.
Act,
consistent with the
file one
may,
this Commonwealth
Failure to raise all claims that
only
petition.
onе PCHA
in the first
consti-
might
have been raised
only
by “extraordinary
tutes a waiver which will
be avoided
circumstances,”
9544(b).
cir-
Extraordinary
42 Pa.C.S.A. §
variously
cumstances have
defined members of this
by
been
Court, see,
e.g.,
dissenting opinion
this author’s
Com-
241, 246,
420
monwealth v.
Pa.
A.2d
Watlington,
(1980);
Mr.
opinion
see also the
Justice Larsen
v,
Alexander,
Pa.
The order Court is reversed.
ZAPPALA, J., concurs in the result.
NIX, C.J., dissenting files a opinion.
NIX, Justice, dissenting. Chief suggested While the rule prophylactic majority, limiting petitioner filing one under Act, Hearing the Post 42 Pa. C.S. Conviction et §§ one, is an in view of the numerous seq., inviting repetitious filed, that are I cannot this petitions agree because bar is legislative conflict with the clear mandate of the Act. Sec- tion dismissal permits Pa. C.S. of claims without further consideration where have been they finally litigated finding or have been waived. Absent such a they each or its required we are to consider merits.