Opinion ID: 2269956
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Introduction of Defendant-Relator's Confession at Trial

Text: In this habeas corpus proceeding defendant-relator has raised, for the first time, the issue of whether the introduction of his confession before the sentencing Court without any objection thereto, at which, we repeat, he was represented by an attorney, violated any of his Constitutional rights. Defendant-relator testified to substantially the same facts which were contained in his confession. Such testimony, coupled with a plea of guilty and a failure to object to or attack the voluntariness of the confession when it was introduced, precludes defendant-relator from raising the issue of the voluntariness of the confession in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Commonwealth ex rel. Parker v. Myers, 422 Pa. 221, 220 A. 2d 851; Commonwealth ex rel. Czako v. Maroney, 421 Pa. 462, 219 A. 2d 664; Commonwealth ex rel. Mullenaux v. Myers, 421 Pa. 61, 217 A. 2d 730; Commonwealth ex rel. Foeman v. Maroney, 420 Pa. 486, 218 A. 2d 230; Commonwealth ex rel. Rehak v. Maroney, 420 Pa. 37, 215 A. 2d 622; Commonwealth ex rel. Blackshear v. Myers, 419 Pa. 151, 213 A. 2d 378; and Commonwealth ex rel. Adderley v. Myers, 418 Pa. 366, 211 A. 2d 481. In the light of these cases it is clear that this contention is devoid of merit. We may add that there is no evidence in the record prior to the present proceedings to establish that defendant-relator's confession was involuntary. Defendant-relator was arrested at 2 A.M. on March 23, 1962. Within 12 hours he signed the incriminating statement or confession, which he now challenges, after he was warned that anything he might say could be used against him at trial. Defendant-relator was not informed of his Constitutional right to remain silent, nor of his Constitutional right to be represented by an attorney, or, if he was indigent, to receive the services of free legal counsel. [] Significantly, this is substantially the warning which was given to the accused in Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719. In the Johnson case, the Court held (a) that Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478; and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, are not to be applied retroactively, and more particularly (b) that Escobedo applies only to those cases in which the trial began after the date of that decision on June 22, 1964, and (c) Miranda applies only to cases in which the trial began after the date of the Court's decision therein on June 13, 1966. Failure to warn persons suspected or accused of crime of their Constitutional rights to remain silent and to have counsel or if indigent their right to have Court-appointed counsel were in March 1962 factors tending to show the involuntariness of a confession. [] Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737; cf. also Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S., supra. However, the determination of voluntariness [] depends largely on the facts of the particular case  i.e., the totality of circumstances. Applying this test to this case, the record discloses that defendant-relator's statements were voluntarily made. Cf. Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S., supra. See also Crooker v. California, 357 U.S. 433; and Cicenia v. LaGay, 357 U.S. 504, which were overruled prospectively by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S., supra; Commonwealth ex rel. Mullenaux v. Myers, 421 Pa., supra; Commonwealth v. Bryant, 367 Pa. 135, 79 A. 2d 193.