Court Opinion

ID: 9697513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:18:46.835896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:32.993302
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority because I do not feel that appellant has set forth any ground which would entitle him to the relief requested.
I strongly disagree, however, with the majority’s statement that the record amply supports the PCHA Court’s finding that appellant knowingly and voluntarily waived his appellate rights. Id. at 849. The record does not support such a finding. In fact, the testimony presented at the PCHA hearing clearly indicates that appellant and his family reasonably believed, until 1977, that appellant’s trial counsel, Benjamin Johnson, had appealed from the lower court’s determination following the January 23, 1975 remand hearing.
Appellant testified at the PCHA hearing as follows:
Q. When the remand hearing was over on January 23, 1975 the Judge found facts against you and made reference to the right of appeal. What if any discussion did you have with Mr. Johnson about that appeal?
A. Well, after Judge Savitt made his ruling Ben Johnson said to me that he would appeal the case.
Q. Back to where?
A. To the Supreme Court, yeah.
Q. There was never any question as to whether or not you wanted him to or if he would agree to?
A. No, that’s the only thing that cooled me out, my composure. He said he was going to appeal it to the Supreme Court.
N.T. March 19, 1980 at 100-01. And on cross-examination:
Q. Sir, you said after the hearing before Judge Savitt, after the hearing on January 23rd, Mr. Johnson told you that he was going to appeal.
A. Yes.
*528Q. Did Mr. Johnson say at that time you would have to pay him any more money?
A. No money was mentioned.
Q. No money was mentioned?
A. No.
N.T. March 19, 1980 at 115-16.
Between 1975 and 1977, appellant wrote “a couple of letters” to Mr. Johnson inquiring as to the status of his appeal, but the letters were not answered. Finally, he wrote directly to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Supreme Court prothonotary informed him, by way of a letter dated August 24, 1977, that there was nothing pending in the Supreme Court on his behalf. Appellant then asked his father and his fiancée, Debbie Seals, to visit Mr. Johnson and find out what was being done on his case. Mr. Johnson informed appellant’s father that he was still owed $1200 for work already performed and that he would not do anything further on the case until that money was paid.
On August 1,1978, Debbie Seals paid Mr. Johnson $1200 in cash and was given a receipt which stated that the money was “for services rendered, and to proceed to the Supreme Court.”
In July of 1979, appellant again wrote to the Supreme Court. Again, he was informed, by way of a letter dated July 12, 1979, that there was nothing pending on his behalf in the Supreme Court. In October 1979, appellant retained new counsel, who filed the PCHA petition which is the subject of this appeal.
Nothing in Mr. Johnson’s testimony contradicts the testimony given by appellant, his father, and his fiancée. Mr. Johnson testified as follows:
Q. Do you recall following that hearing, which occurred in 1975, whether or not Mr. Strickland asked you to resubmit his case for appeal to the Supreme Court?
A. Well, I don’t think there’s any question that Mr. Strickland wanted me to resubmit his case.
Q. He did want you to?
*529A. Yes. I think that during that period of time Mr. Strickland’s father had hired me and he was unavailable. There was already some funds due me still from my working the appeal and the hearing. I think it was approximately $1200 which was ultimately paid to me and I said that I could just not afford to go back before the Supreme Court on my own unless I received some funds and there were no funds available at that time.
Q. Did you convey that to Mr. Strickland following the hearing before Judge Savitt?
A. I don’t have any actual recollection of doing so.
Q. But at some point it was conveyed to him or his family that you were not going to prosecute the appeal because funds were due you?
A. Right.
N.T. March 24, 1980 at 140-41 (emphasis added).
Mr. Johnson’s testimony is that appellant was informed at some point that his appeal would not be pursued until Mr. Johnson was paid. Unfortunately, “some point” was apparently in 1977, long after the period for filing an appeal had expired. Appellant clearly did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his appellate rights.