*1 we are also satisfied an motions and to take would representation in counsel’s nothing there was in this re- judgment making into appellant have misled (1) failure of trial relate to complaints The instant gard. did not the trial court because counsel to seek resentence imposed; reasons for the state its adequately charge on the jury request to failure of trial counsel time of made at the of statements voluntariness the arrest; request to of trial counsel his failure jury’s power on the jury instruct the specifically trial court of trial (4) failure manslaughter; return a verdict of for” test of the “but trial court’s use counsel to to preserve of trial counsel (5) failure of causation and sup- the ruling by following an adverse issue suppression court. pression these review, complaints are satisfied that
After we on the record nothing there is without merit. Thus that he did statement contradict trial counsel’s have errors that would were trial believe there Accordingly, we are of a new trial. grant warranted the of the effective waiver record shows an satisfied that will not be point at this further review appellate rights and entertained. affirmed.
Order A.2d 944 Pennsylvania
COMMONWEALTH JACKSON, Ray Appellant. James Supreme Pennsylvania. April 1981.
Submitted July Decided *2 Fineman, I. Joseph Philadelphia, for appellant. Lawler, Vandenbraak, Robert B. Philadelphia, for Sarah appellee. O’BRIEN, LARSEN, J., ROBERTS, NIX,
Before C. and FLAHERTY, WILKINSON, KAUFFMAN and JJ.
OPINION LARSEN, Justice.
In appellant confessed to involvement in the robbery and murder of one Randolph Butts who was robbed of his wallet and stabbed several times in the back. After a jury trial, appellant was of aggravated robbery convicted and murder of the first and sentenced life degree imprison- ment. An was to this appeal taken trial counsel Jackson, and we affirmed. Commonwealth Pa. In filed a counselled (PCHA) Post Act relief was Hearing petition; Conviction denied after a This followed. hearing. for grounds advances two PCHA relief:
his conviction resulted from the introduction of an involun- confession; trial counsel tary failed of certain to the admission circumstantial It is evidence.1 the merits of either of unnecessary reach these claims.
PCHA relief must be denied because
not sustained his burden of
that his claims have not
been finally litigated.
1180-3(d) provides
that “To
P.S. §
be eligible for
relief ... a
. . . must
person
prove
. . .
the error
in his conviction and
resulting
[t]hat
*3
has not been finally litigated
[emphasis supplied].
...”
433,
424,
266,
Commonwealth v. Logan, 468 Pa.
364 A.2d
271
(“The
burden of establishing
ground upon
post-conviction
requested
relief is
rests on the person seek
ing
relief.”)
Petition,
that
Appellant’s PCHA
briefs and
testimony
utterly
regarding
silent
his 1971 direct app
This Court’s
per
opinion
1971
curiam
does not recite
eal.2
which issues were considered nor are the
in
appellate briefs
brief,
portion
Questions
In the “Statement of
Involved”
of his
argue
also claims that trial counsel
failed to
appellant’s
Appellant,
the voluntariness of
confession.
completely
“Argument” portion
fails to address this claim in the
of
“Argument”
separately
his brief. The
must
address each claim
presented.
2119(a).
Pa.R.A.P.
Failure to do so waives consideration
Colbert,
531,
of the claim. Commonwealth v.
476 Pa.
The order of the PCHA court relief is affirmed. denying ROBERTS, J., concurring opinion. filed a ROBERTS, Justice, concurring. Larsen, opinion petitioner of Mr. Justice
Contrary relief need not seeking post-conviction always “prove” the issues he bases his claim have not been upon which litigated. example, petitioner waived or For where a finally represented been the same counsel at trial and on direct a claim of assistance of appeal, ineffective that coun- sel litigated cannot have been or waived. previously Com- Dancer, monwealth v. 460 Pa. So too, right, recognized asserts a at the petitioner where time of his trial and direct whose retrospective application required, is considerations of constitutionally whether the claim has been waived or are of course irrelevant.
Here, appellant’s claims are not of such a nature. Even that none of assuming previous- claims was raised, has not ly suggested even the existence circumstances which would his failure extraordinary justify post-trial to have raised these issues in motions and on direct Therefore, claims which have not fact been must be deemed to have been waived, the order 4(b)(2), P.S. of the P.C.H.A. § 1180— court should be affirmed.