Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Linda BADGER, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1978-10-05
Citations: 482 Pa. 240
Docket Number: No. 38
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Linda BADGER, Appellant.
Judges: Before EAGEN, C. J, and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 482
Pages: 240–254

Head Matter:
393 A.2d 642
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Linda BADGER, Appellant.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Jan. 10, 1978.
Decided Oct. 5, 1978.
George E. Lepley, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Williams-port, for appellant.
Allen E. Ertel, Dist. Atty., Robert F. Banks, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Williamsport, for appellee.
Before EAGEN, C. J, and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX, MANDERINO and LARSEN, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
EAGEN, Chief Justice.
Linda Badger and two co-defendants were arrested on March 18, 1974, and charged with criminal conspiracy, deliv ery, and possession of a controlled substance, namely heroin. On September 30,1974, Badger appeared before the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County and expressed an intention to plead guilty. The Commonwealth was then asked to detail the facts of the case. Following an oral recitation of the alleged facts by the district attorney, defense counsel challenged the accuracy of a portion of the district attorney's summary, which implied Badger was the ringleader in the criminal transaction. Thereupon, the court asked Badger if she were admitting the facts as recited by the district attorney, and when she replied in the negative defense counsel requested permission to withdraw the guilty plea and the motion was granted.
Following the foregoing, Badger entered a plea of not guilty and, without objection by defense counsel, a nonjury trial proceeded before the same judge before whom the guilty plea had been entered. Badger was found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five to twelve years.
On appeal to the Superior Court, the judgment of sentence was affirmed. Badger filed a petition for allowance of appeal, and we granted the petition.
In the Superior Court, Badger was represented by new counsel who asserted trial counsel was ineffective, see Commonwealth v. Dancer, 460 Pa. 95, 331 A.2d 435 (1973), in failing to seek recusation of the judge following the withdrawal of Badger's guilty plea. The same issue was presented in Badger's petition for allowance of appeal and is now presented to this Court. Since we conclude this issue warrants reversal of the judgment of sentence, we shall not consider the other issues presented.
The Superior Court reasoned that, had a motion to recuse been made, it would have constituted reversible error to deny it, but that counsel could not be deemed ineffective for failing to make the motion because the chances of success before another judge were not substantially greater than they were before the judge who heard the plea since the Commonwealth's evidence was particularly strong.
In this context, the test for determining the effectiveness of counsel is whether ". . the particular course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client's interests." [Emphasis in original.] Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 604, 235 A.2d 349, 352 (1967). Instantly, no reasonable basis for not requesting recusation is advanced and apparently there is none. Accordingly, counsel's failure to request recusation constitutes ineffectiveness and thus a new trial must be granted.
The Commonwealth's argument to the contrary is based on the majority opinion of the Superior Court. That opinion in essence reasoned that the Commonwealth's evidence was so strong that it would be a futile gesture for Badger's counsel to ask for trial before another judge. Such an assessment of the
". . . strength of the prosecution's evidence against the defendant is, of course, one step in applying a harmless error standard. See Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427, 92 S.Ct. 1056, 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969)."
Cf. Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. 391, 383 A.2d 155, 165-66 (1978). Essentially, a harmless error standard seeks to determine whether the error had a prejudicial effect. Commonwealth v. Story, 476 Pa. at 412-413, 383 A.2d at 166. See Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 171, 305 A.2d 715 (1973); Schneble v. Florida, supra. Such an analysis in determining whether counsel is effective cannot be used because
"assistance of counsel is among those 'constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.' " Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 489, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1181, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) quoting from Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).
This is not to say that in determining whether a "particular course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate [a] client's interests," Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, supra, 427 Pa. at 604, 235 A.2d at 352, a court should not "weigh the alternatives." Moreover, we reiterate that ". . .a finding of ineffectiveness [can] never be made unless [it can be] concluded that the alternatives not chosen offered a potential for success substantially greater than the tactics actually utilized." Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, supra, 427 Pa. at 605, n. 8, 235 A.2d at 353, n. 8. But in examining the alternatives, a court may not utilize a harmless error analysis, and the alternatives must be examined only as a means of determining whether the course chosen had some reasonable basis.
Disregarding the harmless error analysis instantly, the alternative of having a judge, who was not aware of the plea, try the case would have offered a "potential for success substantially greater than" the tactics used. Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, supra, 427 Pa. at 605, n. 8, 235 A.2d at 353.
Judgment of sentence reversed and new trial ordered.
-O'BRIEN, J., concurs in the result.
POMEROY, J., files a dissenting opinion.
NIX, J., joins in Part I of dissenting opinion by POMER-OY, J.
. Judge Price concurred in the result. Judge Spaeth filed a dissenting opinion.
. Badger also argues: 1) the trial court improperly excluded a hearsay statement; and, 2) the judgment of sentence is "manifestly excessive so as to inflict too severe a punishment on" Badger.
. The Commonwealth does not contest this portion of the Superior Court's analysis.