*1 336 In Lykiardopoulos,
cases. v. Lykiardopoulos (1973), held that the claims of the wife for we to maintain the entire- money spent and credit for support proceeding in a under the property joined ties could not be A.2d 277 Pa 419 Reeping, .Super. act. v. Reeping for mon (1980),the husband’s mother asserted a claim 766 The court held spouses’ in of the debts. ey spent payment the sale could part proceeds that no of the awarded be the former tenants the entireties. anyone other than no to institute spouses standing creditor of one of the has entireties East property, for the sale of former proceedings (C.P. Gold, D. v. 60 & C. 95 Corporation ern Acceptance 1947). other than involving property A claim Montgomery, proceed not in a may the former entireties estate be raised act, Fayette v. 30 L.S. ing Sandusky Sandusky, under the case, I find that the joinder In the instant would as it required permitted, neither nor of Hazel Lohmiller is not of the entireties part that was property would involve cognizable that there is a majority I with the agree estate. farm, Lohmiller’s interest but involving claim Hazel other than the brought an action such claim must be instant one.
I affirm the Court. would ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting opinion. in this joins Pennsylvania, Appellant,
COMMONWEALTH PARKER, Appellee. Lloyd Pennsylvania. Supreme 20, 1983. Submitted Oct. Dec. 1983.
Decided *3 Eisenberg, Henson, Atty., Dist. Ronald Deputy Eric B. appellant. for Philadelphia, ap- for Pollock, (court-appointed), Philadelphia L.
David pellee. FLAHERTY, LARSEN, NIX, C.J., ROBERTS, and Before jj. ZAPPALA, and
McDERMOTT, INSON HUTCH OPINION McDERMOTT,Justice. 15, 1965, July drugstore a at Girard in
On Street Philadelphia, operated husband, Lillian Baker her by and 18, 1965, defendant, at gunpoint. July was robbed On Parker arrested the Lloyd by Philadelphia Police and back to According driven the scene of the crime. to Mrs. trial, Baker’s at she testimony immediately recognized de- robber, as fendant but was too him to identify afraid (N.T. 19-20, his face 85-86). Eight Trial later days however, at the preliminary hearing, the victim positively (N.T.P.H. identified the defendant as the assailant 7/23/65 6, 28). trial, at At defendant’s other victim two individuals, present the store at the time of the robbery, all identified defendant. The jury guilty found defendant aggravated robbery and carrying deadly weap- concealed on. trial judge, DiNubile, Victor Honorable J. denied
post-verdict (5) motions and sentenced defendant to five (10) ten years imprisonment. appeal by direct defendant was denied 1966. Commonwealth Parker, Pa.Super. (1966), allocatur denied, No. (PA 136-A Miscellaneous Docket No. 17 filed 8/10/70). subsequently petitions filed three relief under (hereinafter the Post-Conviction Hearing Act “P.C.H.A.”) all of which were denied. 3, 1976,
On June defendant filed his fourth P.C.H.A. petition. Judge DiNubile dismissed the petition without a *4 hearing. appealed this to Superior dismissal the merits, Court. on 1980, a brief the filed in defendant alleged that the confrontation between the defendant and the victim of robbery the suggestive impermissibly that the victim’s subsequent identification should sup- have been pressed counsel, and that as trial well all as later counsel were not raising ineffective for this issue. On April 1982, panel a of Superior the Court reversed and remanded for an hearing on evidentiary this fourth P.C.H.A. petition. Commonwealth, herein, petitioned this Court appellant
The allocatur. appeal granted allowance of we of appeal, raises a number issues. Suc- appellant In this defendant, (17) are: whether seventeen cinctly they stated later, (4) is petitions and four P.C.H.A. after his trial years not his a on a claim is relevant to hearing entitled to which innocence, no to the and which make difference or will guilt Superior may of trial and whether the Court outcome his hearing on post-conviction evidentiary order a remand for the although record indicates representation counsel’s prior all the aforemen- reasonably. We answer counsel acted negative. in the questions tioned The court dismissed defendant’s fourth P.C.H.A. trial already that the raised had been finding after issue petition Act, 42 the Hearing Pursuant to Post-Conviction litigated. § 9544, is if previously litigated. an issue waived Pa.C.S.A. did this support held that the record not Superior The defend the Court held that finding. Additionally, an provided of counsel ant’s assertion of ineffectiveness to justified which the failure “extraordinary circumstance” petitions. P.C.H.A. prior raise issue not Pa. We do Watlington, 491 agree. defendant, in his
In the case fourth P.C.H.A. instant his was ineffective for lawyer claims that trial petition, impermissibly sugges the issue of an failing have raised further contends that tive confrontation. He pre-trial suppression of a later confrontation merits unconstitutional identifi disagree. in-court identification. We victim’s at (2) present individuals cation was corroborated two 61). (N.T. Additionally, Trial robbery the time at eight days also later victim identified defendant 95). (N.T. Despite this over hearing Trial preliminary attempted he has whelming guilt, evidence of defendant’s a feeble ineffective collaterally attack his conviction with of collater type claim. This is the abuse ness counsel al review which must be eradicated.
341 using is his claim of ineffectiveness of perpetuate counsel as a vehicle his meritless In case. for granted order a defendant to be collateral relief he must demonstrate a claim he has actually credible that received ineffective assistance. allegation naked without more will not suffice. made, inquiry threshold when of ineffectiveness alleged,
counsel is is whether the challenged action and/or arguable inaction was of merit. Commonwealth v. Hub bard, (1977). 472 Pa. If the claim is meritless, then counsel can not be deemed for ineffective Gaston, failure to it. pursue 474 Pa. (1977). 297 A.2d Applying standard to the case judice sub will result in dismissal of appellee’s petition. Review of the of facts this case reveal more than adequate basis for counsel’s failure to contest the one-on-one confrontation. Primarily, counsel was aware that there existed an indepen dent basis for the victim’s court identification. Furthermore, standard ineffectiveness counsel was set forth in Commonwealth ex rel. v. Maro ney, Under if it Maroney, garnered can be from the record that counsel acted reason then ably relief will be denied. Here defense counsel chose to use the victim’s failure to identify defendant at the pre-trial confrontation his advantage. By introducing trial, this confrontation at jury made aware of the victim’s failure to identify time, defendant at that thus casting upon doubt subsequent victim’s identifications of the defendant. This can strategy be deemed hardly ineffective. light disposition, our the decision of the Superior is
Court reversed and the order of the Common of Philadelphia Pleas County, Criminal Division denying petition defendant’s for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act is re-instated. ZAPPALA, result, as does
ROBERTS, C.J., concurs J. *6 concur- and files a
FLAHERTY, J., in the result concurs ring opinion.
FLAHERTY, Justice, concurring. I take majority, reached in the result
Concurring
in my
set forth
position
reassert
opportunity
Watlington,
v.
dissent authored
241,
Marcelino Deceased, Appellant, APPEAL BOARD COMPENSATION WORKMEN’S CORPORATION), (BETHLEHEM Appellees. STEEL Pennsylvania. Supreme Court 24, 1983. Argued Oct. Dec. 1983.
Decided 23, 1984. Denied Feb. Reargument