221 Pa. Super. 384 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1972
Lead Opinion
Opinion by
In early January of 1968 the Supreme Court in a unanimous opinion stated that trial courts would be
In September of 1968 the appellant filed a post-conviction petition asking that the right of appeal be granted nunc pro tunc. After the appointment of counsel the petition was granted in February 1969, but no appeal was actually taken. In November of 1969 the appellant, through counsel, filed a second post-conviction petition praying for reduction of sentence or, alternatively, vacation thereof. Denial of this petition was appealed and our Court affirmed, Commonwealth v. Woolcutt, 217 Pa. Superior Ct. 91, 266 A. 2d 551 (1970) (per curiam, Spaulding and Hoffman, JJ., dissenting) and allocatur was refused.
By the failure of the appellant and his counsel to raise the issues in the earlier post-conviction petitions or in his appeal and the failure to prosecute the right of appeal nunc pro tunc, under §4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act
In October 1971 the appellant filed his third PCHA petition requesting a new trial because of the absence
The appellant in this Court for the first time asks that he be given an evidentiary hearing to determine if his plea was constitutionally invalid. He has not contended in the court below on any of his three PCHA petitions that his pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily. His petitions show no reason why he should be allowed at this time or at any future time to make that contention.
The order of the lower court is affirmed.
Effective February 3, 1969, Pa. R. Crim. P. 319(a) was amended to require an on the record inquiry and determination of whether pleas of guilty are knowingly and voluntarily entered.
Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, §4, 19 P.S. §1180-4 (Supp. 1971).
Anderson has received retroactive application, Commonwealth v. DeSimone, 447 Pa. 380, 290 A. 2d 93 (1972).
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
tinder the circumstances of this case I can find no reasonable basis for counsel’s failure to raise the issue of the voluntariness and validity of appellant’s guilty pleas in his Post Conviction Hearing Act petitions.