Opinion ID: 2374008
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: PCHA Petition

Text: The issue abandoned with the suppression motion withdrawal [3] and revived in the PCHA petition is the same: whether there was lacking the type of probable cause necessary for a citizen's arrest. If the arrest was illegal, then the evidentiary fruits of that arrest must be suppressed. Wong Sun v. U.S., 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 441. The PCHA petition is the first time appellant has been represented by counsel other than the counsel who represented him at the suppression hearing. The issue before us is, therefore, properly preserved. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 463 Pa. 180, 344 A.2d 483 (1975). The task before us is to determine whether counsel's withdrawal of the suppression motion had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client's interest. Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599 at 604, 235 A.2d 349 at 352 (1967). [4] One method of meeting this test is to find that the issue not raised was meritless. [5] Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 372 A.2d 687 (1977). Thus, in order to rule on appellant's claim of trial counsel ineffectiveness here, we must evaluate the merits of the withdrawn suppression motion. Namely, if it had not been withdrawn, should it have been granted? In pursuing this enquiry, we will engage in a two-step analysis. First, are there any legal consequences to a finding that this citizen's arrest was illegal? (We hold that there are.) Second, was this arrest illegal? (We find that it was not.)