Court Opinion

ID: 9764348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:19:26.388349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:55.961518
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. Appellant argues here, as he did in the PCHA court, that he should be awarded a new trial because,
(1) the on-the-record colloquy of the guilty plea proceeding was inadequate under the standards of Pa.R.Cr.P. *272319 and Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974);
(2) the trial judge participated in the negotiations leading to the plea bargain in violation of Commonwealth v. Evans, 434 Pa. 52, 252 A.2d 689 (1970), and
(3) appellant was denied his right to effective representation of trial counsel.
The issues raised by the appellant in this appeal may or may not have merit. For the reasons that follow, I would not reach the merits of the issues raised however. Appellant did not appeal following the imposition of the judgments of sentence in 1972. The prosecution therefore argues that the case is controlled by Commonwealth v. Tunnell, 463 Pa. 462, 345 A.2d 611 (1975), and that we should not consider those issues raised in this appeal. In his PCHA petition, appellant alleged that he was denied the right to appeal, as guaranteed by Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963). This Douglas claim has not been pursued on appeal. In Commonwealth v. Tunnell, we said:
“On appeal to this Court appellant does not challenge the propriety of the judge’s ruling on the Douglas claim. He contends here only that the evidence produced at the post-conviction hearing requires a finding that his plea was invalid and that the sentencing judge should have permitted him to withdraw his plea. However, we do not reach the validity of this contention because appellant has failed to show that this claim was not waived, as required for relief under section 3(d) of the PCHA, supra, § 3(d), 19 P.S. § 1180-3(d). Commonwealth v. Hines, 461 Pa. 271, 336 A.2d 280 (1975).
Appellant’s contention that his plea was invalid was cognizable on direct appeal, Commonwealth v. Greer, 457 Pa. 646, 326 A.2d 338 (1974); Commonwealth v. Hill, 457 Pa. 1, 7, 319 A.2d 886, 890 (1974), and a failure to so raise it, absent extraordinary circumstances to justify such failure, constitutes a waiver under section 4(b) of the PCHA, supra, § 4(b), 19 P.S. § 1180-4(b). While appellant might *273have avoided waiver had he prevailed on his Douglas claim, Commonwealth v. Fiero, 462 Pa. 409, 341 A.2d 448 (filed July 7, 1975); Commonwealth v. Via, 455 Pa. 373, 376, 316 A.2d 895, 897 (1974), his failure to pursue the hearing court’s adverse ruling on this point precludes further consideration of the issue.” (Footnotes omitted.) Id. 463 Pa. at 462, 345 A.2d at 612.
This appeal is not controlled by Tunnell, however, for here the post-conviction hearing court made no adverse ruling as to appellant’s Douglas claim. Citing Commonwealth v. Stokes, 426 Pa. 265, 232 A.2d 193 (1967), the post-conviction court said the following as to appellant’s claim that he was denied his appeal rights.
“The defendant now contends that he was also deprived of his appellate rights. Of course, there is no merit to this contention since it is well settled that at this posture of the case the defendant may raise, by collateral attack, precisely those issues which he may raise on direct appeal. Commonwealth v. Stokes, 426 Pa. [262] 265, 232 A.2d 193 (1967). That is, having pleaded guilty, the defendant may only attack the jurisdiction of the court, the validity of his guilty plea and the propriety of his sentence.” Commonwealth v. Ward, 442 Pa. 351, 275 A.2d 92 (1971). (Emphasis added.)
Although the PCHA court said “there is no merit to this contention”, read in context, it is clear that the court was not deciding whether appellant had waived his Douglas rights by failing to appeal from his judgment. Rather, the court was relying on Stokes. In Stokes, we said that “the denial of right to appellate review, even if true, would not be prejudicial. . . . ” because the issue of the validity of the plea was cognizable in a collateral proceeding. Under Stokes, therefore, the post-conviction court did not need to determine whether there had been a denial of Douglas rights. This procedure was changed by Tunnell, and the PCHA court should have determined whether appellant was denied his Douglas rights.
*274Appellant raises issues which would require a reversal of the judgment of sentence and a remand for new trial if meritorious and if he prevailed on the Douglas claim. We do not, however, have the benefit of any ruling on the claimed denial of the right to appeal. I would therefore remand the record to the post-conviction court with instructions that it consider and rule upon appellant’s alleged denial of the right to appeal. Following a determination by the post-conviction court, appellant should be allowed to refile his appeal within the appropriate time.
POMEROY, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.