Commonwealth v. James, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
October 9, 1970
440 Pa. 205 | 269 A. 2d 881
Argued January 8, 1970.
We return now to Roundtree‘s first contention, i.e., that he didn‘t fully understand the meaning of his guilty plea. As to this, the burden of proof was upon him,3 and the court below did not err in concluding that this burden was not met, especially so in view of the testimony of Roundtree‘s trial counsel at the “PCHA” hearing, which completely refuted his claim in this respect.
Judgment affirmed.
James D. Crawford, Assistant District Attorney, with him Richard Max Bockol, Assistant District Attorney, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE EAGEN, October 9, 1970:
On June 1, 1954, the appellant, Isaac James, in the presence of and upon the advice of legal counsel entered a general plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with murder in the then Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Jail Delivery of Philadelphia County. The plea was accepted by a three-judge court, which then conducted an evidentiary hearing and adjudged James guilty of murder in the first degree. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life. No appeal was entered from the judgment.
In 1968, James instituted post-conviction relief proceedings under the
James was taken into police custody following the fatal stabbing of Harold Holmes after dissension arose between them from an incident in a basketball game played in a neighborhood public school yard. James was fifteen years of age at the time. Subsequent to his arrest, he was taken without counsel before a judge sitting in the Juvenile Court Division of the Municipal
The
James now maintains the hearing in the Juvenile Court and the certification of the case to the Court of Oyer and Terminer violated due process, and therefore his subsequent plea of guilty and judgment of sentence must be invalidated. Lack of due process is alleged for the following reasons: (1) absence of counsel for James at the hearing; (2) unavailability of a transcript of the proceedings; (3) the hearing court abused its discretion in certifying the case; (4) the ruling in Gaskins, supra, violates the
A minute study of the record discloses that Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, supra, were never raised in the court below,1 and hence, may not be raised for the first time on appeal. Commonwealth v. Payton, 431 Pa. 105, 244 A. 2d 644 (1968).
As to the contention that due process was violated by the absence of counsel at the certification hearing, there is no doubt but that the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the assistance of counsel at such a hearing is constitutionally mandated. See Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S. Ct. 1999 (1970). See also, Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 86 S. Ct. 1045 (1966). But we are not persuaded that this ruling applies retroactively. See and compare, Mordecai v. United States, 421 F. 2d 1133 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 977, 90 S. Ct. 1098 (1970); Brown v. New Jersey, 395 F. 2d 917 (3d Cir. 1968); Kemplen v. Maryland, 295 F. Supp. 8 (D. Md. 1969); People v. Terpening, 16 Mich. App. 104, 167 N.W. 2d 899 (1969); State v. Johnson, 5 N.C. App. 469, 168 S.E. 2d 709 (1969); Commonwealth v. Godfrey, 434 Pa. 532, 254 A. 2d 923 (1969); Commonwealth v. Willman, 434 Pa. 489, 255 A. 2d 534 (1969).
The certification hearing concerned not a determination of delinquency, but merely a waiver of jurisdiction. The fundamental fairness, truth and accuracy of the subsequent guilt-determining process was not affected by the lack of counsel at this hearing.
Nor can the denial of counsel at a certification hearing be equated with the denial of such assistance at trial or during proceedings to determine guilt. This
Finally, it is urged that the guilty plea was involuntary and unknowingly made; the trial court erred in accepting the plea without proper inquiry directed to James personally; and James was denied effective assistance of trial counsel.2 These issues were correctly resolved by Judge SLOANE in the court below. See United States ex rel. Grays v. Rundle, 428 F. 2d 1401 (3d Cir. 1970); Commonwealth v. Roundtree, 440 Pa. 199, 269 A. 2d 709 (1970); Commonwealth v. Savage, 433 Pa. 96, 249 A. 2d 304 (1969); and Commonwealth ex rel. West v. Rundle, 428 Pa. 102, 237 A. 2d 196 (1968).
Order affirmed.
DISSENTING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS:
I must dissent from today‘s majority decision which misinterprets the United States Supreme Court‘s recent and controlling pronouncements in Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S. Ct. 1999 (1970).
“First, the lawyer‘s skilled examination and cross-examination of witnesses may expose fatal weaknesses in the State‘s case, that may lead the magistrate to refuse to bind the accused over. Second, in any event, the skilled interrogation of witnesses by an experienced lawyer can fashion a vital impeachment tool for use in cross-examination of the State‘s witnesses at the trial, or preserve testimony favorable to the accused of a witness who does not appear at the trial. Third, trained counsel can more effectively discover the case the State has against his client and make possible the preparation of a proper defense to meet that case at the trial. Fourth, counsel can also be influential at the preliminary hearing in making effective arguments for the accused on such matters as the necessity for an early psychiatric examination or bail.” 399 U.S. at 9, 90 S. Ct. at 2003.
In the present case appellant was taken without counsel before a judge of the Juvenile Division of the Municipal Court who certified the case over to the district attorney for prosecution. The nature and purpose of this proceeding is characterized by the majority as follows: “If, at the hearing in the juvenile court, a prima facie case of murder is made out against a juvenile, then the court must hold the accused for prosecu-
Indeed, the majority admits as much, citing Coleman and stating that “[a]s to the contention that due process was violated by the absence of counsel at the certification hearing, there is no doubt but that the United States Supreme Court recently ruled that the assistance of counsel at such a hearing is constitutionally mandated.” The majority holds, however, that Coleman is prospective only. I find this conclusion untenable. The Supreme Court has previously accorded retroactive treatment to the right of representation by counsel at trial, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792 (1963), on appeal, Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814 (1963), at sentencing, Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S. Ct. 254 (1967), and at preliminary proceedings in which the rights of an accused might be adversely affected, White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 83 S. Ct. 1050 (1963); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S. Ct. 157 (1961). See, respectively, Doughty v. Maxwell, 376 U.S. 202, 84 S. Ct. 702 (1964); Smith v. Crouse, 378 U.S. 584, 84 S. Ct. 1929 (1964); McConnell v. Rhay, 393 U.S. 2, 89 S. Ct. 32 (1968); Arsenault v. Massachusetts, 393 U.S. 5, 89 S. Ct. 35 (1968). The decision in Coleman was a direct extension of White v. Maryland, supra, and Hamilton v. Alabama, supra. Inasmuch as these two
Accordingly, I would remand appellant‘s case, as was done in Coleman, for a determination whether the unconstitutional certification hearing was harmless error. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967). However, as appellant‘s conviction rests upon his plea of guilty, the only question to be determined upon remand would be whether the invalid hearing rendered his guilty plea either unintelligent or involuntary.