*1 139 thе ambit task not within employee or contractor —a Controller’s duties.12 City affirmed. Order dissents. J.,
Jacobs, 12 despite Service, the Internal note that Revenue We pro rulings requires agents above, its referred now favorable warnings prior interrоgating Miranda-type people with vide Jaskiewicz, their United States v. them about tax returns. See F. 2d n. 10. Dissenting Opinion J.: Price, I in all but its agree opinion majority conclusion that this is a of a criminal investigation part I the investigation would conclude invеstigation. Since non-criminal its and pur- here discussed to be scope I would Miranda require warnings. not pose, I would the order reverse lower Accordingly, court. Appellant. v. Minor,
Commonwealth *2 Argued September 1974. 11, Before P. Watkins, J., Jacobs, Hoppman, Cercone, Yan der Price, Voort, and JJ. Spaeth,
Edward for Griffith, appellant.
Mark Sendrow, Assistant District with Attorney, B. him Richardson and Steven E. Douglas Goldblatt, Assistant District Abraham J. Attorneys, Gafni, Dep- District Richard A. uty Attorney, First As- Sprague, sistant District and E. Attorney, Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, Commonweаlth, appellee. 1974: 11, December
Opinion J., Price, on and July 1971, 4, was arrested appellant a con- carrying and rоbbery with aggravated in an incident from cealed deadly weapon, stemming knifepoint $9.40 a cab driver was robbed Apрellant Philadelphia. and Market Eighth Streets, how- 1972; 19, these on June pled guilty in- pre-sentence pending was deferred evеr, sentence Febru- examination until psychiatric vestigation ary 16,1973. How- appellant. filed by
No motions were post-triаl an filed pro se, on February 1973, appellant, ever, 28, pauperis appeal petition proceed forma appellant’s peti- On March this Court. tion was granted. his
In this
contends
appeal,
robbery
carry-
the chargеs
aggravated
not knowingly,
ing
deadly weapon
a concealed
*3
the rec-
because
intelligently
and
voluntarily,
mаde,
of
that
aware
the
fully
ord fails to establish
he was
the
crimes.1
charged
and elements of
nature
v.
that Commonweаlth
argues
Initially,
which sets
(1974),
Pa.
that the principles in enunciated to re- Ingram werе ceive prospective application only. See also Com- monwealth Mack, v. 230 Pa. Superior Ct. 326 A. 596, 2d 881 In (1974). light of 8 appeal this is chorlo, gov- erned by the pr e-Ingram standards for the entering guilty pleas.
Pa. R.
P.
Crim.
319(a),
the time of the instant
provided in
plea,
pertinent
part
that:
“The
. .
judge
. shall not accept
unless he
guilty plea]
[a
after
determines
inquiry
defеndant
that
the plea
is
voluntarily
in
tendered. Such
understandingly
shall
on
quiry
appear
the record.” A
of this
corollary
rule is the requirement
appellant understand
nature of the
to which
he
Common
pleads.
wealth v.
445 Pa.
Belgrave,
285 A.2d
311,
448 (1971);
Commonwealth v.
442 Pa.
Enty,
A.2d 926
Commonwealth v.
(1971);
Cushnie, 433 Pa.
A.2d 290
Commonwealth ex
(1969);
rel. West v. Run
dle,
In the instant we in- appeal, believe recorded is quiry inadequate when measured against pr e-Ingram in standards effect at the time of the The fact plea. that appеllant was informed of the name of the only crimes one instance and, only initials, cannot be construed as sufficient аpprise appellant of the nature and elements of the charged crimes there- by permitting a knowing intelligent guilty.
Rеversed and remanded for new trial. Dissenting Opinion Van dee Vooet, J.: *4 I from respectfully dissent the Opinion of the ma in this case for jority the reason that it although has some similarities to Commonwealth v. Schork, 230 Pa. Ct. Superior A.2d 878 I (1974), believe it is different аnd from distinguishable our holding in that case. guilty pleaded appellant case instant in the deadly carrying robbery concealed aggravated a
to adequately not weapon. he that was claims He now against conse- chаrges and that him the informed of voluntarily quently and understand- was not his colloquy asked ingly he was recorded In the made. you the following question: “Q. Do understand the to you appear Court, of the charges the bar which you Robbery have that Aggravatеd C.C.D.W., wit: jury? by heard right matter this to have an absolute A. Yes.” by question appellant appears this me that
It judge hearing he did that indiсated to the and answer charges against him. had skilled He the understand he that when to assume no reason and there is сounsel charges against him says the understand that he did v. In Commonwealth not. did that he nevertheless or not not asked whether dеfendant was the Schork, charges against In that case, him. he understood the charged he that was if he understood he аsked was burglary, asked if he knew he was with four counts they if he under- he asked was that occurred charge the maximum sentence stood what burglary if he had Avasasked reviewed and he was, against charges and if he felt that he was him inquiries, burglaries. these he To all of of the three replied He was addition- in the affirmative. goods, larceny receiving ally stolen exрlained any way. him in were not appellant asked if he was bar, In the case charges against albeit the him, all understood by charge C.C.D.W.; named its initials, Ave&pons charge that the one was identified the fact however, greater reasоn for be initials would its charge didn’t if he understand indicate that not. he did in fact
'144
For these while the not an colloquy reasons, еxample future it to me to be appears guidance, under and I adequate standards would pre-Ingram affirm the of sentence. judgment Appellant. Commonwealth ex rel. Ulmer v. Ulmer,