*1 stitution on three separate occasions. pe- Accordingly, titioner must now be granted evidentiary hearing, with counsel. Post Conviction Act Hearing 19 P.S. §9, (Supp. 1969); Pa. R. Crim. §1180-9 P. 1504. petition for allocatur is granted, order Court is the order of reversed, the hear- court ing vacated, the case remanded to the Common Pleas Lancaster County fur- ther proceedings consistent with opinion. Appeal. *2 1970. Before C. J.,
Argued January Bell, and Pomeroy, Roberts Eagen, O’Brien, Jones, Cohen, JJ. her R. ap- Daniel Shertzer, G. Forer,
Lois with pellant. Assistant District with Attorney, Reinly, F.
James him for Com- District Newcomer, Attorney, C. Clarence monwealth, appellee. April 1970:
Opinion Roberts, Mr. Justice of June Charles 2, 1968, the afternoon Late other became in- youths several Laverne in an volved inter-racial fight street Penn- Lancaster, sylvania. No one was seriously injured the course of affray, Wilson’s participation was apparently cоnfined to having thrown a few punches. Juvenile de- linquency were proceedings, however, brought against Wilson as a the incident.
Wilson’s case came on for a hearing at a.m. 9 :30 on July 1968. His whom he met for the counsel, first time that entered morning, plea behalf and agreed that Wilson had participatеd in the fight. After was taken the testimony following colloquy occurred: [defense counsel]: “Me. Hummer Your I would like to Honor, one I think say thing. is obvious from his not one the leaders in whatever this gang consisted or what- of, ever occurred and I don’t even believe he was one here, *3 of the main I perpetrators. think he was perhaps along with and them, as his own he testimony admitted was, that he did in the participate fracas. Court: has course he been trouble before. In Well, and on charged placed with burglary probation. You have trouble to going also some don’t school, you? Dependаnt: sir. The Court: Were sus- Yes, you You seem pended from school also? to be in need that about some stricter Isn’t discipline. right? De- I pendant: don’t know. You don’t The Court: the court so don’t finds from know, know. Well, you and from your prior in this case conduct. testimony Charles Laverne Wilson a delin- The court adjudges him to thе State In- and commits Correctional quent ,”1 . . Pennsylvania. at Hill, stitution Court based its commitment order on a “. . . the Juvenile present complete inquiry failed to and accurate wbicb limited picture No was solicited from Wilson’s needs. Wilson throughout hearing, present mother, as to his wbo was or bis psychiatric Further, examination was nor ordered home life. testify background. to any probation as Wilson’s In officer did to Court resulted appeal per Judge curiam with opinionless affirmance, in an Judge dissenting opin- Spaulding and
Hoffman ion written the former.2 We allocatur. by granted argues adjudication
Wilson that his he was de- (1) be four reasons: ought reversed charges against nied notice of the timely adequate of counsel; ineffective assistance him; he received (2) than for a period potentially his commitment (3) simple counts of an adult with two charged that which the Equal could receive violаted battery assault and to the Fourteenth Amendment Clause Protection hearing judge United States Constitution; discretion. abused his
Notice
the right
that he was denied
alleges
In re
mandated
timely
Gault,
notice”
“adequate
the Supreme
87 Ct. 1428
wherein
387 U.S.
S.
(1967),
“. . .
not allow
that Due Process
does
Court said
and .his
freedom
yоuth’s
to be held
which a
giving
are at state without
to his
parents’ right
custody
in advance of the hearing,
timely notice,
them
The invidiousness of the becomes procedure obvious when one opinion dissenting Judge reads Hoff- unlike had an who, judge, opportunity man to consider these events with the benefit arguments from counsel with a opposing greater leisure. He concluded that: “My reading probation own secured from Juvenile Court of Lancaster record, negates seriousness County, however, past mentioned lower court ‘burglary’ conduct. an incident occurred refers when old. he At time broke a years was window ran water public school’s toilet school, bowls from dispenser and knocked soap wall a total He on 14 months damage placed probation, $8. appears conduct and from have been record, interval. in that Wilson was also ex- satisfactory for a reason from school omitted from his rec- pelled accused . and ... never of, prosecuted ord . . supra. 3 gee preceding colloquy note *5 Ap- in a diner.” Wilson using profane language for, 2d 214 Pа. Ct. A. peal, opinion). (dissenting of Wilson’s record it is clear From summary judge conduct mentioned the past in- and that Wilson’s not of a serious nature, importance prob- of these to argue ability im- of the commitment length to contributed ably posed. of Counsel
Ineffective Assistance client until did not meet his counsel Wilson’s not to the present He did hearing. morning he though even theory court or a self-defense argue to show that Wilson tended aware evidence which witnesses. complaining into striking was “provoked” to references to trial court’s He objection made final argument. He made no prior history. Wilson’s a high of this case raise that the facts It our view However, of inadequate representation. probability issues to the relevant notice as what of any absence errors make the other procedural to be and going Were done much have how counsel cоuld to difficult see represent- inadequately Wilson was than did. more from the court’s more stemmed inadequacy but the ed, than from any Gault rights accord Wilson his failure to counsel. inability his
Equal Protection based on petition was two been battery. simple Having assault charges he was of that conduct a result delinquent found period an Hill indefinite Camp committed his twenty-first birthday. beyond not extend time time maximum possible he was sixteen Since commitment was five years. Had Wilson been tried as adult been convicted simple assault punishment would battery again have probably been commitment since Hill,4 maximum sen- tеnce for one of simple count assault and is two battery *6 he could have been years, given a maximum sentence of four only years.
Under the Equal Protection of Clause the Four teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution a state may make upon distinctions the basis of only rea sonable сlassifications. If the Commonwealth wishes to make individuals of similar conduct guilty eligible for maximum of sentences varying lengths must dem onstrate that the distinctions which it makes are based on some relevant and reasonable classification. Com monwealth v. 430 Pa. 243 Daniel, A. 2d 400 (1968).
It our is view can there be constitutionally valid distinction between a and an adult of- fender justifies which of one them making subject a in maximum longer commitment same institution for the same conduct.5 can
There be under circumstances which a longer maximum commitment be may permissible, only are present: (1) three factors The juvenile must have of notice at the of proceedings any outset and all which the upon proposes base ad- state 4 imprisonment by [. sentenced of J] “. uveniles to terms . Courts invariably committed Quarter of Sessions are to the State Cor Camp for a in Institution Hill sentence not rectional excess specified by Penal Code. For instance, maximum term as juveniles writing, there are who have been con of this proceedings before Courts of Quarter crimes Sessions victed of prisons other than state incarcerated Hill.” Wil are who 160, 167, Superior (1969) Appeal, Ct. 251 A. 2d 214 Pa. son opinion). (dissenting Superior Appeal, 160, 162-68, 214 Pa. Ct. 251 A. 2d See (1969). 671, 672-675 judication (2) the ultimate delinquency; conclusions upon finding and based, the facts each must be found supporting them, clearly forth in the it must adjudication; set be commitment longer clear will juvenile’s rehabilitative care receiving appropriate of Ms deprived not just being liberty If time.6 all three these conditions are present, period of his for a juvenile may deprived liberty maximum which he could have excess if treated an adult. received on and on the other two holdings points Our to venture into make it unnecessary raised Wilson and decide whether thicket of reasonableness in this case.7- abused its discretion trial court reversed, Order of pro- for further and case remanded commitment vacated opinion. with this consistent ceedings *7 Pomeroy Eagen Mr. con- and Justice Mr. Justice in the result. cur 6 post- premise of Law is that the A the Juvenile Court central juvenile delinquent
adjudication of the is somehow dif treatment that the adult offender must better than which from and ferent by endure, Juvenile Court Law’s discussion the as is demonstrated dispositions juvenile delinquents: possible institutional may “The or to the care “(c) some suitable institution child to a Commit objects society, incorporated of whose is or one association of an neg- delinquent, dependent guidance and care, control of and the children. ... lected school, training or industrial or “(d) to an a child Commit willing purpose, for such maintained county or school institution care, guidance control.” it, to receive §250(e)-(d). 11 P.S. L. P. June Act of impossible question be almost without would Review judge. Noting by that none opinion the the benefit requirements point opportunity that the out filed, take this we juvenile as to all others. as well eases apply to Rule our Concurring Opinion Mr. Justice Cohen: I with the agree that majority denied to “adequate and right timely notice” mandated by In re 1U.S. Gault, and that the record (1967), must be remanded for a new I trial. do concur not, however, in the reasoning expressed by in the majority para graph entitled “Equal Protection.” it is
First, absolutely unnecessary reach this is- sue as the failure to give adequate notice makes new trial mandatory. Also, assuming is cor- majority rect that holding given Wilson violates the Equal Protection Clause, that remedy, were error only would be to remand for below, resentenc- ing. Since we have already determined that a whole new trial must be there no is held, pоint discussing the narrower question of the proper sentencing proce- dure.
Second, states that majority Wilson was found delinquent as the assault and battery charges is our view there can con- “[i]t valid distinction stitutionally between a offender justifies an adult which one of them making to a maximum subject commitment in the same institution for the same conduct.” This reasoning is contradictory expressed to that directly the para- In that on notice. section the graph majority states: clear that the hearing “It quite judge this case no distinction between those issues which drew were adjudication those relеvant im- were determining length commitment. portant based obviously of delin- Rather, *8 incidents in previous on two which Wilson had quency a school involved, suspension and a been ‘burglary/ that he finding on the had participated as well as led to initiation that fight proceed- the street ings.” following colloquy.
The record discloses The suspended you Court: Were from school You also? discipline. seem to be in need of some Isn’t stricter right? I about : don’t that know. The you : You don’t know. don’t know, Well, in this court so finds ease from from prior your adjudges Lá- eonduet. The court Charles commits, delinquent him to the veme Wilson a Penn- Institution Hill, State Correctional added) sylvania. (Emphasis . It is because Wilson . .” given fact conduct other not notice of the was that charge battery in the assault and than that involved determining he were a whether would be evaluated delinquent majority for a trial. remands new say can then that the con- it I dо not understand how five-year the same as led to his sentence was duct which two-year sentence if he had lead a maximum would The conduct led tried as an adult. which been five-year finding sentence was and the support charge of would conduct not -that battery.. simple Additional conduct was аssault incorrect state that Wilson and as such, involved, equal protection because the the laws denied the the same as that he was sentenced for which conduct two-year pi^odueed sentence if he have which would an adult. been tried had majority’s Finally, conclusion I concur сannot period longer juvenile may for a committed be a. subject were he an be he would to which than that present. The first two factors are three if their adult adjudica- every delinquency present must prospective and as to regardless sentence, tion question. third how- factor, can be there them longer that the clear commit- must be “it states ever, receiving appropriate juvenile’s in the ment will just being deprived not his care rehabilitative I do not see time.” how sen- liberty for a *9 fencing court imposing at the time of or Superior Court or appeal this Count on can determine period whether a certain of commitment will appropriate deprivation liberty. rehabilitative care or approach require guess Use -this will courts what doing the defendant will be and what will be done for period during him being and it is commitment, expect unrealistic to that courts can make such a de- meaningful way. termination in a Aside from these three I do not believe that factors, can ever period incarcerated than an adult for game conduct. However, record discloses that this is not the factual situation before now us. agree majority
IAs with the that Wilson did not required by receive the notice I concur in Gault, grant of a new trial. joins
Mr. Chief Justice Bell in this opinion. Sprowal, Commonwealth ex rel. Petitioner, v. Hendrick.