Court Opinion

ID: 9652369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:22:55.679212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:50.727443
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that appellant’s claims are without merit and judgment of sentence should be affirmed. I cannot agree, however, with the majority’s suggestion that appellant should not have raised his claim based on after-discovered evidence in this appeal from judgment of sentence, but instead should have raised the claim in a separate appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief.
The post-conviction hearing court ruled that appellant should be allowed to file an appeal as if timely filed from judgment of sentence. Having decided that appellant was entitled to a direct appeal, the hearing court should not have addressed any other claims raised in the petition for post-conviction relief:
“[WJhere a post-conviction court determines that a petitioner is entitled to a direct appeal, no decision should then be made on other bases alleged therein for post-conviction relief. See Commonwealth v. Bricker, 458 Pa. 367, 369 n.2, 326 A.2d 279, 280 n.2 (1974). See also, Commonwealth v. Harris, 443 Pa. 279, 278 A.2d 159 (1971); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 442 Pa. 512, 276 A.2d 537 (1971). This procedure is preferable since it allows all of the complaints that may be raised to be disposed of in one action.”
*291Commonwealth v. Webster, 466 Pa. 314, 319, 353 A.2d 372, 374 (1976). I fail to see any reason why, when the post-conviction hearing court incorrectly proceeds after granting a direct appeal to hear a claim raised in the petition, the error should be compounded by requiring the defendant to ignore the claim in his direct appeal, and instead raise it in a separate appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief.
In keeping with the policy of allowing all of a defendant’s claims to be disposed of in one action, see Commonwealth v. Webster, id., we have sought to ensure that any claims which can be raised in post-conviction proceedings may also be raised in a direct appeal. Thus, we require a defendant to raise issues in the direct appeal, even though the facts upon which those claims are based were not before the trial court when the defendant was found guilty or his plea of guilty was accepted. See Commonwealth v. Lee, 460 Pa. 324, 333 A.2d 749 (1975) (challenge to the validity of a guilty plea should be raised on direct appeal);1 Commonwealth v. Dancer, 460 Pa. 95, 331 A.2d 435 (1975) (claim that trial counsel was ineffective must be raised on direct appeal).
In particular, our cases recognize that the claim at issue here, that a new trial should be granted on the basis of after-discovered evidence, can be raised on direct appeal. See, e. g., Commonwealth v. Miller, 465 Pa. 458, 350 A.2d 855 (1976); Commonwealth v. Tervalon, 463 Pa. 581, 345 A.2d 671 (1975); Commonwealth v. Mosteler, 446 Pa. 83, 284 A.2d 786 (1971); Commonwealth v. Bulted, 443 Pa. 422, 279 A.2d 158 (1971); cf. Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(d) (motion for a new trial on the basis of after-discovered evidence should be filed in post-verdict motions).
Requiring that these issues be raised on direct appeal conserves judicial resources, and ensures that a defendant is not required to wait until a direct appeal is decided before he can raise a claim which entitles him to relief. Therefore, *292it was proper for appellant to raise his objection to the post-conviction court ruling on his after-discovered evidence claim in this direct appeal. The majority’s suggestion requires needless paperwork by counsel and the courts.1 2 All issues which can be raised in a direct appeal should be, and there is no need to take a separate appeal from the denial of post-conviction relief.

. The rule requiring that all issues be raised in a direct appeal applies with equal force when appellant has been granted leave to file an appeal as if timely filed. See Commonwealth v. Bricker, 458 Pa. 367, 326 A.2d 279 (1974) (validity of guilty plea raised after defendant was given leave to file post-trial motions as if timely filed).

. Failure to raise an issue on a direct appeal may prevent an appellant from raising the issue in a later post-conviction proceeding. Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580 § 4(b)(1), 19 P.S. § 1180 — 4(b)(1) (Supp. 1977). I do not believe the majority would find the issue waived when, although it is not raised in the direct appeal, it is raised in a simultaneous appeal taken from the denial of post-conviction relief. Even so, counsel would be ill-advised to follow the majority’s suggestion and fail to raise an issue in the direct appeal.