Case ID: pa_498/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

446 A.2d 892
    COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James Bernard MILES, Appellant.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Submitted April 13, 1982.
    Decided June 25, 1982.
    
      Methuselah Bradley, IV, Philadelphia, for appellant.
    Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals Div., Alan Sacks, Asst. Dist. Attys., Philadelphia, for appellee.
    Before O’BRIEN, C. J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT and HUTCHINSON, JJ.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial, after a counselled evidentiary hearing, of the petition of appellant James Miles for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to object to allegedly prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor; (2) for failing to challenge appellant’s pretrial statements on the ground of unnecessary delay, see Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972); (3) for making remarks to the jury allegedly indicative of counsel’s “siding” more with the Commonwealth than with appellant, and (4) for conceding the credibility of the police officer who had taken appellant’s pretrial statements. Our review of the record convinces us that appellant has failed to demonstrate that counsel’s strategy lacked a reasonable basis designed to effectuate appellant’s interests. Thus appellant is not entitled to relief. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967).

Order affirmed.