Court Opinion

ID: 9700228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:16:42.521192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:05.596202
License: Public Domain

MANDERINO, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent to the majority opinion’s attempted re-writing of the Post Conviction Hearing Act. That Act provides that relief may be granted if a petitioner’s conviction resulted from, among other things:
“(12) The abridgement in any other way of any right guaranteed by the constitution or laws of this State or the constitution or laws of the United States . . ..” [Emphasis added] (Section 3(c) of the PCHA)
Contrary to the majority’s assertion, Comm. v. Rightnour, 469 Pa. 107, 364 A.2d 927 (1976) (plurality opinion) may not be cited for the proposition that “ . • . . a claim is not cognizable under the act unless it is of constitutional dimension.” (p. 688). The view expressed in the “Per Curiam” opinion in Rightnour did not represent the view of a majority of this Court (having been joined only by Mr. Justice Eagen, Mr. Justice O’Brien, and Mr. Justice Pomeroy). Three other justices expressed the view that “ . . . The PCHA clearly provides review of [non-constitutional] claims such as that raised by appellant.” Id., 469 Pa. at 115, 364 *526A.2d at 930 (dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Roberts, joined by Nix and Manderino, JJ.).
Mr. Justice Roberts’ words in dissent in Rightnour are equally applicable to this present attempt to re-write the PCHA:
“The Legislature and our fellow citizens will be shocked to learn that when a statute reads ‘constitution and laws’ the majority of this Court construes these words to mean only ‘constitution.’ This reading makes no more sense than if the majority said ‘day and night’ means only ‘day’ or ‘A and B’ means only ‘A.’ Put simply, the majority arbitrarily chooses to erase two words used by the Legislature. This defies clear and simple statutory language and creates an absurd result.4
Id., 464 Pa. at 117, 364 A.2d at 931.
Thus, it does not matter whether appellant’s PCHA claim is based on an alleged violation of the “Constitution,” or of the “laws” of Pennsylvania. So long as his claim has not been waived or finally litigated, appellant is entitled to be heard on his PCHA petition. I therefore dissent.

“4 The majority, in its interpretation of this section, also defies the Statutory Construction Act of 1972. The Legislature there provides: ‘Words and phrases shall be construed according to the rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage
1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903 (Supp.1976).
‘Every statute shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.’
1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(a) (Supp.1976).
‘When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.’
1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b) (Supp.1976).
‘In ascertaining the intentions of the General Assembly in the enactment of a statute the following presumptions, among others, may be used:
‘(1) That the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd . .
‘(2) That the General Assembly intends the entire statute to be effective and certain.
1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1922 (Supp.1976).”