Opinion by
Rоse Schloss was murdered and her husband brutally beaten when their home and delicatessen store were robbed on December 13, 1958. Appellant was tried before a jury and found guilty of murder in the first degree on April 23, 1959, with a sentence of death. Appellant’s motion for a new trial was granted by the lower court, and that ordеr was affirmed by this court, which dismissed the Commonwealth’s appeal.
Commonwealth v. Melton,
Appellant then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which was dеnied.
U.S. ex rel. Melton v. Hendrick,
On October 17, 1968, appellant, through his counsel, filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. A stаy of execution was granted and the Commonwealth then filed an answer requesting that the petition be dismissed for failure to allege facts which would justify the granting of relief under the act, or under any decision or undеr any provision of the Constitution. In the intervening eleven months, neither appellant nor his counsel sought to amend the petition, and, on October 16, 1969, appellant’s petition was dismissed without a hearing.
An appeal to our Court followed, and on July 13, 1970, without the benefit of oral argument, we affirmed the lower court’s dismissаl of the appellant’s post-conviction petition. In the interim between the filing of the appeal and the announcement of our decision appellant obtained new counsel. We pеrmitted the filing of a petition for reargument and, after consideration of the petition, we granted appellant the right to reargument.
In appellant’s original petition, filed in 1968, the only reason stated in support of appellant’s request for judicial review under the Post Conviction Hearing Act was a citаtion of our opinion in
Commonwealth v. Harris,
The Commonwealth urges that appellant waived this issue by his failure to raise it in his second appeal. According to §4(b) of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, 1 an issue is waived if: “(1) The petitionеr knowingly and understandingly failed to raise it and it could have been raised before the trial, at the trial, on appeal, . . . and (2) The petitioner is unable to prove the existence of extraordinary cirсumstances to justify his failure to raise the issue.”
Section 4(c) provides that: “There is a rebuttable presumрtion that a failure to appeal a ruling or to raise an issue is a knowing and understanding failure.”
Howevеr, the Post Conviction Hearing Act did not become effective until March 1, 1966. Before 1966, there was no waivеr doctrine either by statute or by case law. In 1961, when appellant pursued his direct appeal, fаilure to raise a claim involving a constitutional question on direct appeal was not grounds for denial of subsequent collateral relief of that claim by means of habeas corpus. See, e.g.,
Com. ex rel. Wilson v. Rundle,
For this reason we believe that this cаse is controlled by our decision in
Commonwealth v. Cannon,
*227
Similarly, we hold that the waiver provisions of the Post Conviction Hearing Act do not apрly to appeals filed prior to March 1, 1966. Appellant has not filed any petition for collatеral relief, except the Post Conviction Hearing Act petition now before us, subsequent to March 1, 1966. In this petition, as stated above, the claim of mental incapacity to enter a guilty plea is raisеd for the first time. Since the claim was not foreclosed by the prior direct appeal, it follows thаt appellant is entitled to an adjudication on the merits of his claim, and that his petition should not have been dismissed without a hearing. 2
Order reversed and case remanded for a hearing consistent with this opinion.
Notes
Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, §1 et seq. 19 P.S. §11801 et seq.
Appellant also raises on this appeal another issue, not аsserted in his petition, viz., that his plea was induced by his fear of the death sentence at the hands of a jury sеlected in violation of the United States Constitution. See
Witherspooon v. Illinois,