Case Title: Commonwealth v. Scott

Citation: 366 A.2d 226, 469 Pa. 381

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1976-11-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
469 Pa. 381 (1976) 366 A.2d 226 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Dallas Robert SCOTT, Appellant. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Submitted May 3, 1976. Decided November 24, 1976. *382 Dusan Bratic, Harrisburg, for appellant. Marion E. MacIntyre, 2nd Asst. Dist. Atty., Harrisburg, for appellee. Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, and MANDERINO, JJ. O'BRIEN, Justice. This appeal arises from the dismissal, without a hearing, of the Post Conviction Hearing Act Petition of appellant, Dallas Robert Scott. The facts surrounding this appeal are as follows. On February 18, 1970, appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree. Post-trial motions were filed, but subsequently withdrawn. Appellant was sentenced to a term of ten to twenty years in a state correctional institution. A direct appeal was taken to this court, which affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Scott, 445 Pa. 618, 284 A.2d 311 (1971). In 1973, appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Following an evidentiary hearing, the petition was denied on September 24, 1974. On November 13, 1974, appellant filed a pro se petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act.[1] Counsel was appointed, but no amended petition was filed.[2] On December 5, 1974, appellant's petition was dismissed without a hearing. Appellant's pro se petition was inarticulately drawn and, in the opinion of the court below, failed to allege "facts that if proven would entitle petitioner to relief.. . .." 19 P.S. § 1180-9. This appeal followed. *383 We do not reach the merits of appellant's claim because of the procedural posture of this case. In the instant case, pursuant to the mandate of Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 427 Pa. 395, 397, 235 A.2d 148 (1967), the public defender's office was appointed to aid the appellant in his post-conviction proceeding. In Mitchell, this court, in requiring appointment of counsel, stated: In Commonwealth v. Fiero, 462 Pa. 409, 341 A.2d 448, 450 (1975), this court reaffirmed Mitchell, and further defined counsel's role by stating: Under the circumstances of this case, appellant's appointed counsel failed to perform his duties and responsibilities *384 of adequate representation. Therefore, the post-conviction proceedings were uncounselled and violative of Mitchell and § 12 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act. Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County is vacated and the matter is remanded to that court with instructions to appoint counsel to represent appellant in the filing of an amended post-conviction petition and any further proceedings thereon. POMEROY, J., filed a concurring opinion. POMEROY, Justice (concurring). My review of the record in this case satisfies me that the order of the Court is warranted, and I therefore concur in it. I add this statement merely to make clear my own view that the Court should not establish a per se rule to the effect that any lawyer appointed to represent a petitioner under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 26, 1966, P.L. 1580, § 1, et seq., 19 P.S. § 1180-1, et seq. (Supp. 1975-76), must file an amended petition or be deemed to have failed in his professional duties to his client, who may then proceed anew with different counsel. I do not understand that such a rule is being established in this case. [1] Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. 1580 § 1, et seq., 19 P.S. § 1180-1, et seq. (Supp. 1975-76). [2] Such amendments should of course be filed, when necessary for adequate representation.