Court Opinion

ID: 9704649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:41:51.714929+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:03.886035
License: Public Domain

*179CERCONE, President Judge,
dissenting:
The question presented is whether at a PCHA1 hearing petitioner’s trial and revocation counsel could be found ineffective in failing to perfect direct appeals from both petitioner’s initial judgment of sentence and a subsequent order entered after a revocation hearing, revoking probation and imposing judgment of sentence on petitioner’s original conviction. The Majority, without explanation or justification, proclaims that both trial and revocation counsel were ineffective for failing to file direct appeals, and accordingly, grants petitioner the right to file his direct appeals nunc pro tunc. The Majority, however, errs when it reasons “[bjecause the Commonwealth introduced no evidence to show that appellant waived his right to appeal and to the assistance of counsel,” that prior counsel were necessarily ineffective in failing to perfect direct appeals despite petitioner’s apparent requests that they do so. To the contrary, applying the settled standard for determining whether an accused has been denied the effective assistance of counsel compels us to conclude that petitioner’s present collateral attack on his conviction must fail; petitioner’s PCHA counsel has not only failed to show that any claims which petitioner may have raised on direct appeal were of “arguable merit,” but also has failed to even indicate in what respects trial and revocation counsels’ decisions not to appeal lacked a reasonable basis.
I.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In evaluating petitioner’s contention that both of his counsel were ineffective for failing to perfect direct appeals after being requested to do so, the Majority departs in fundamental respects from the test set forth in Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 604, 235 A.2d 349, 352 (1967) and its progeny:
*180“[CJounsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective once we are able to conclude that the particular course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests.”
Under this standard, however, counsel cannot be held ineffective for either failing to assert a fruitless claim or for failing to perfect a baseless appeal, as, in such cases, counsel has not foregone an alternative which offers any potential for success. E. g., Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 278, 372 A.2d 687, 696 (1977); Commonwealth v. Nole, 461 Pa. 314, 336 A.2d 302 (1975); Commonwealth v. Harrison, 228 Pa.Super. 42, 323 A.2d 848 (1974). It is only when the abandoned (or waived) claim has “arguable merit ” that we must undertake the further inquiry into counsel’s basis for not pursuing it. E. g., Commonwealth v. Weathers, EL, 485 Pa. 28, 400 A.2d 1295 (1979); Commonwealth v. Sherard, 483 Pa. 183, 192, 394 A.2d 971, 976 (1978); Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 258 Pa.Super. 121, 392 A.2d 714 (1978); Commonwealth v. Harrison, 228 Pa.Super. 42, 323 A.2d 848 (1974). In this regard, petitioner’s PCHA counsel neither instructed the PCHA court nor this Court of the issue or issues of “arguable merit” which trial and revocation counsel could and should have pursued on the direct appeals which they did not perfect. Indeed, petitioner’s PCHA counsel does not argue that the advice of prior counsel not to appeal was incorrect, misleading, or ineffective in any particular. Rather, petitioner, and apparently the Majority also, reason that counsel’s refusal to heed petitioner’s requests to appeal per se demonstrates that counsel’s conduct did not have a reasonable basis designed to effectuate petitioner’s interests under the first prong of the Washington v. Maroney test, supra. Our examination of the relationship between a denial of “Douglas rights”2 and the relief available under the PCHA, as well as recent cases decided by both this Court and our Supreme Court, however, forecloses such a conclusion.
*181(a) “Waiver” & “Douglas Rights”
At the threshold of most PCHA proceedings in which an accused alleges a deprivation of “Douglas Rights” there necessarily appears a determination of whether the accused’s failure to take a direct appeal constitutes a waiver under Section 1180-3(d)3 and 1180-4(b)4 of the Act of any claims he may have presented on that appeal. See, Commonwealth v. Holmes, 468 Pa. 409, 364 A.2d 259 (1976); Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 258 Pa.Super. 121, 392 A.2d 714 (1978); Commonwealth v. Peake, 210 Pa.Super. 133, 231 A.2d 908 (1967). In resolving this question, all Pennsylvania appellate courts are uniform in holding that “[i]f an issue is not raised on direct appeal, it is presumptively treated as waived unless the petitioner can show that extraordinary circumstances justified his failure to raise it previously.”5 19 P.S. § 1180-4(c); Blackwell, 258 Pa.Super. at 123, 392 A.2d at 715; Commonwealth v. Valezquez, 244 Pa.Super. 327, 330, 368 A.2d 745, 746 (1976). See also, Holmes, 468 Pa. at 415, 364 A.2d at 262.6 Equally clear is the further proposition *182that counsel’s failure to file a direct appeal may rise to the level of ineffective assistance of counsel, such that an “extraordinary circumstance” within the meaning of section 1180-4(b)(2) of the Act is present where counsel’s ineffectiveness has resulted in a denial of a petitioner’s appeal rights. E. g., Commonwealth v. Holmes, 468 Pa. 409, 416, 364 A.2d 259, 263 (1976); Commonwealth v. Blackwell, 258 Pa.Super. 121, 392 A.2d 714 (1978); Commonwealth v. Valezquez, 244 Pa.Super. 330, 327, 368 A.2d 745, 764 (1976); Commonwealth v. Green, 234 Pa.Super 236, 338 A.2d 607 (1975). Compare, Commonwealth v. Tunnell, 463 Pa. 462,345 A.2d 611 (1975); Commonwealth v. Fiero, 462 Pa. 409,341 A. 2d 448 (1975).7 In pursuing this argument in the present proceeding, however, PCHA counsel bore the burden of alleging facts which would support a determination that both prior counsel’s actions were erroneous in failing to perfect direct appeals.8 Instantly, since PCHA counsel failed to show how any claims of “arguable merit” could, or should, have been pursued on the direct appeals which were not perfected, we would hold that “extraordinary circumstances” have not been shown.
II
PCHA Proceedings and Douglas Rights
As a result of the above rules and principles, any claims which would have been cognizable on the direct appeals which counsel’s actions thwarted, are now not only capable of being raised, but should have been raised by PCHA *183counsel if petitioner is to succeed in his present collateral attack. To the extent that petitioner’s desire to take a direct appeal was dashed by his counsel’s action, this alone is not prejudicial. E. g., Commonwealth v. Musser, 437 Pa. 131, 133, 262 A.2d 678, 680 (1970) (per curiam); see also, Commonwealth v. Hayes, 462 Pa. 291, 341 A.2d 85 (1975); Commonwealth v. Walker, 460 Pa. 658, 334 A.2d 282 (1975). This is so for a simple reason; namely, since ineffective assistance of counsel is the only claim that petitioner’s PCHA counsel now raises, and presumably would have raised on the direct appeals which trial and revocation counsel frustrated, all such claims of ineffectiveness cognizable on that direct appeal are capable of being raised in the instant PCHA proceeding. Similarly, in the absence of any contention by present counsel that trial and/or revocation counsel’s action in not appealing was incorrect or misleading, it can not be held that they were, strictly speaking, per se ineffective. On the direct appeals which the Majority would grant petitioner,9 would not petitioner in order to prevail have to avail himself of either one of two contentions — (1) that the lower court committed some reversible error in convicting or sentencing him or; (2) that trial and/or revocation counsel’s actions were constitutionally deficient in omitting to pursue some course of action at trial.10 In either *184case, the ultimate conclusion which would be reached by the Majority of this court would be the same as regards prior counsel’s representation,. i. e., in the former case counsel would be ineffective in advising petitioner not to take a direct appeal and in the latter case counsel’s error would merely be compounded by his failure to perfect a direct appeal. In view of the above, we are at a loss as to how the Majority reasons that trial and revocation counsel can be ineffective even though PCHA counsel fails to raise any claim which would have required a reversal if raised on direct appeal, i. e., that trial and/or revocation counsel were ineffective in failing to perfect a direct appeal in order to raise issues of “arguable merit.”
In sum, this record cannot sustain the Majority’s conclusion that both counsel for petitioner were ineffective. Petitioner’s prior counsel have not been shown either to have ignored any issues which would have required a reversal, or to have failed to take any action or give any advice which demonstrated a lack of legal preparation. To the extent, therefore, that the Majority concludes both of petitioner’s prior counsel were ineffective, they pursue a course which is unsupported by recent precedent11 and not required in the *185interest of orderly procedure or fairness to petitioner and his counsel.

. Post Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. §§ 1180-1 et seq. (Supp. 1978-1979) [Hereinafter: PCHA or Act],

. Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963).

. Section 1180-3(d) of the Act provides:
“To be eligible for relief under this act, a person must initiate a proceeding by filing a petition under section 5 and must prove the following:
. That the error resulting in his conviction and sentence has not been finally litigated or waived.”

. Section 1180 — 4(b) of the Act provides:
“For the purpose of this act, an issue is waived if:
(1) The petitioner knowingly and understandingly failed to raise it and it could have been raised before the trial, at the trial, on appeal, in a habeas corpus proceeding or any other proceeding actually conducted, or in a prior proceeding actually initiated under this act; and
(2) The petitioner is unable to prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify his failure to raise the issue.”

. A waiver is not presumed where petitioner did not have counsel at the time the waiver allegedly occurred. E. g., Blackwell, 258 Pa.Super. at 124 n.3, 392 A.2d at 715 n.3; Commonwealth v. Haynes, 234 Pa.Super. 556, 561, 340 A.2d 462, 464 (1975) (quoting with approval from Commonwealth v. Mumford, 430 Pa. 451, 243 A.2d 440 (1968).

. A refinement of this general principle is the rule that in the absence of extraordinary circumstances all claims of ineffective assistance of *182trial counsel must also be so raised. Commonwealth v. Dancer, 460 Pa. 95, 100-01, 331 A.2d 435, 438 (1975). See also, Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 276-77 n.6, 372 A.2d 687, 695 n.6 (1977).

. Therefore, not only is ineffective assistance of counsel an “extraordinary circumstance” which will prevent a waiver of PCHA relief, see Commonwealth v. Holmes, 468 Pa. 409, 364 A.2d 259 (1976); Commonwealth v. Musser, 463 Pa. 85, 343 A.2d 354 (1975), but also, a denial of Douglas Rights precludes a finding of waiver under § 4 of the Act generally. E. g., Holmes, 468 Pa. at 417 n.7, 364 A.2d at 263 n.7; Commonwealth v. Fiero, 462 Pa. 409, 341 A.2d 448 (1975).

. See, 19 P.S. § 1180-3; Commonwealth v. Sherard, 483 Pa. 183, 189, 394 A.2d 971, 975 (1978).

. In cases of the present posture, however, where a PCHA court has erroneously found a waiver, the proper procedural disposition by this court is not to grant petitioner a direct appeal nunc pro tunc as the Majority does. In particular, the proper procedure would be to remand to the PCHA court for a determination of the ineffective assistance of counsel argument and then, if necessary the underlying issues on their merits. See Commonwealth v. Valezquez, 244 Pa.Super. 327, 328-29, 368 A.2d 745, 746 (1976). As we observed in Valezquez, to endorse the Majority’s procedural disposition “would be sanctioning a wholly unnecessary and confusing method for considering issues which were not raised . , on a previous appeal. In cases such as this, the issues can be satisfactorily addressed simply by employing the well-established procedure under the PCHA.” Id.

. Furthermore, were we to accept the Majority’s judgment, a most unfortunate circumstance might befall appellant on his direct appeals nunc pro tunc. It might not be inconsistent with the rationale of Dancer, 460 Pa. 95, 331 A.2d 435, and Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 372 A.2d 687, to require the court on appellant’s nunc pro tunc appeals to *184hold that PCHA counsel’s failure to raise all aspects of the ineffectiveness of trial and revocation counsel’s representation in the PCHA proceeding amounted to a waiver of all those so omitted.

. The per se approach of the Majority was sub silentio rejected by two recent cases. In Commonwealth v. Holmes, 468 Pa. 409, 364 A2d 259 (1976) the Commonwealth argued, as it does in the instant proceeding, that petitioner had waived his right to raise an issue on collateral attack because of his failure to file a direct appeal. The testimony of record established that petitioner had specifically requested an appeal, but that counsel had advised against, and did not perfect the appeal as instructed. The court in determining the waiver question reasoned that petitioner’s attorney was ineffective not because he failed to heed the petitioner’s instructions or because the issue sought to be raised was not waived, but rather because his advice not to appeal, as well as his failure to perfect a direct appeal was erroneous in view of the holding in Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1974). In any event, the Court neither transmuted the finding of no waiver into a conclusion of ineffective assistance of counsel nor did it articulate or apply a different test of ineffectiveness to a failure of counsel to perfect a direct appeal. The recent decisions of this court are to the same effect. E. g., Common*185wealth v. Blackwell, 258 Pa.Super. 121, 125, 392 A.2d 714, 715-16 (1978). Compare Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U.S. 327, 89 S.Ct. 1715, 23 L.Ed.2d 340 (1969).