*1 mental that Mrs. Scott’s the evidence showed noted, during in powers the time she was undiminished were suggests, Appellee Mrs. however, intensive care. signature time at the read the card Scott could have glasses, signed because she wore she it, ap wearing on them the three occasions was not pellee intensive or her mother Mrs. Scott visited appellee points out that Mrs. care unit. Moreover, cramped, signature and written on card is Scott’s appearance of slight slant. But the downward hardly surprising signature of Mrs. view this hospital lying supine position, bed with on a Scott’s head. her arms and attached to medical instruments suppose By not unreasonable the same token, might position, finding Mrs. Scott herself that, eyeglasses there was her unless not choose wear particular something Moreover, she wanted to see. finding support is insufficient the evidence glasses.3 We unable to read without Mrs. Scott surcharge accordingly that the order conclude not warranted. in accordance is modified
The of distribution decree pay party opinion; own costs. each with this part in the considera- took Roberts of this case. or decision tion disability appear visual does not Mrs. Scott’s nature of in the record. Appellant. v. Velez,
Submitted 1974. C. January 8, Before Jones, J., Nix and Man- Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, DERINO, JJ. for appellant. Spaulding, 0.
Joseph Richman, David Assist- Levintow and H. Benjamin As- First Richard Sprague, Attorneys, District ant Emmett and F. Attorney, Fitzpatrick, District sistant Commonwealth, appellee. Attorney, District 1974; March Mr. Justice Eagen, en- while assisted counsel Yelez, Ramos Ruben murder generally. Contem- of guilty a plea tered poraneously, bargain court was informed a bad negotiated by attorney’s been tbe district and office appellant’s knowledge counsel for Velez witb tbe compliance agreement, consent. In witb tbe tbe assist- attorney ant district then certified tbe rose offense bigber than murder in tbe second recom- mended to court of no less sentence years imposed. than six and no more than be pros He also tbe court to crimi- moved nolle two other pending against nal indictments Velez. accepting questioned plea,
Before tbe court affirmatively extensively, indicated be understood who charge, approved ar- tbe nature of tbe rangement; free act; that tbe was bis own right by jury un- be to trial that was aware bis possible impact of bis well as tbe derstood tbe as accepted consequences.1 and, Tbe court then *3 adjudication evidentiary bearing, an entered after an guilt second and sentenced of murder tbe of years. This for a of six to to term appeal affirm. followed. We direct assignment error tbe was of Tbe sole by tbe motivated no effect because it was of invalid by police pretrial tbe confession secured a of existence of bis constitu- aware Velez was a time at rights. tional in order to success- times, several have stated
As we ground guilty tbe motivat- was fully a attack through means constitu- by secured a confession ed establish: defendant must tionally impermissible, tbe constitutionally confes- invalid of a (1) existence by confes- guilty motivated was (2) sion; incompetently advised (3) defendant sion; questions, Velez “. . . stated court’s of the one 1 In answer my go higher than crime will know is anxious I am All degree.” second
437 counsel to rather than stand trial. See plead guilty 252 Commonwealth v. 299 A. 2d Tolbert, 450 Pa. 149, Commonwealth v. 296 Taylor, 345, 2d 823 Commonwealth v. Reagen, Marsh, A. 2d 241 and Commonwealth v. 290 A. 2d 481 also McMann 440 271 See (1970).2 S. 1441 (1970), 90 Ct. Richardson, Parker v. North Carolina, U.S. 790, (1970). attacked by pre- here involved was confession hearing,
trial motion After an evidentiary to suppress. the the the and found that before court denied motion confes- rise to the gave commenced which questioning his fully Velez was advised of constitutional sion, U.S. Miranda v. Arizona, as mandated rights that he 86 S. understood Ct. (1966), rec- of the hearing his Our rights. reading suppression amply ord us the court was warranted persuades conclusion. arriving at this In of it is determine unnecessary view the above, or the guilty plea whether the confession motivated of counsel advice plead guilty whether the attorneys the range competence required criminal defendants. representing affirmed. Judgment concurs the result. Manderino validity evaluating criteria same In through proceeding or a apply collateral the attack whether Hollenbaugh, appeal. 295 A. See
direct
(1972).
2d
*4
Concurring
Mr. Justice Roberts:
af-
sentence should be
the judgment
I agree
voluntarily
Appellant’s
firmed.
accepted by
and properly
tendered
understanding^
Maddox,
v.
court.
trial
P.
ABA
319A;
Proj-
R. Crim.
A.2d
ect on Minimum
for
Standards
Criminal
Stan
Justice,
dards
to Pleas of
Eelating
1.4-.6
Guilty
(Approved
§§
ABA
Project
Standards
Draft, 1968);
Criminal
Standards
to the Function of the Trial
Eelating
Justice,
4.1-.2
Ms
(Approved Draft, 1972).
Judge
§§
not as the result
bargain,
entered as
result
of an
confession. See Santo
allegedly illegal pretrial
bello
York,
v. New
A.2d
Alvarado,
Commonwealth ex rel. Kerekes v.
Mahoney,
Simco Stores et al.,
Authority.