Case Name: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James Bernard MILES, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1982-06-25
Citations: 498 Pa. 372
Docket Number: No. 80-3-472
Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James Bernard MILES, Appellant.
Judges: Before O’BRIEN, C. J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT and HUTCHINSON, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 498
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
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:
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.