Court Opinion

ID: 9750070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:17:02.892199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:02.418572
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Jones :
This case presents the question of whether a waiver of post-trial motions is knowing and voluntary if it is motivated by both the belief in the futility of raising the substantive issues involved and the fear of the imposition of the death penalty in the event a new trial is granted. The majority has decided that “though other factors may have been present, if fear of the death penalty ‘was a factor’ in appellant’s decision to withdraw his post-trial motions he is entitled to relief.” I disagree.
This issue was confronted in Commonwealth v. Littlejohn, 433 Pa. 336, 349, 250 A. 2d 811, 817 (1969) : “[I]t is not clear on this record whether appellant’s failure to prosecute an appeal was due to his lawyer’s advice that such a procedure would be fruitless or because he was in fear of receiving the death penalty at a second trial. Therefore, the only appropriate disposition is to remand the case for a hearing on this issue. If the hearing judge should find that appellant’s decision was motivated out of fear of the death penalty, then he should allow appellant to prosecute his appeal.
The record of this appellant’s PC IIA hearing indicates that the decision not to present post-trial motions was based to some extent upon appellant’s counsel’s belief that there was no sound basis for either post-trial motions or appeal.
“Q. (by Michael Mather, Assistant District Attorney for the Commonwealth) : Do you recall discussing with [appellant] filing post-trial motions in his case after the jury convicted him? A. (by William J. *370O’Brien, appellant’s trial counsel): I do remember, although rather vaguely, I must say. The Court : If he says it was discussed with him, but that he didn’t want to appeal because he was told he might get the chair on a new trial, would that be correct? A. (Mr. O’Brien): That would be correct, sir.
“Q. (by Mr. Mather): Did you feel there were any good grounds for appeal, any good grounds for post-trial motions? Did you feel you had a good legal position with any issue? A. No, I didn’t partieulmdy, I thought we had presented the alibi and the other testimony, well, the only doubt in my mind toas the confession. But, I wasn’t too sure of what our success would be on appeal with that.”
Whether the right to appeal was voluntarily waived must rest upon resolution of the question whether the failure to press post-trial motions was motivated by fear of the death penalty. The hearing judge apparently determined, and is supported by the record, that fear of the death penalty was not the prime motivation for appellant’s decision to withdraw post-trial motions. It appears rather that appellant’s counsel advised him that post-trial motions and an appeal would be fruitless and the appellant acted accordingly.
I would not disturb the order of the hearing judge below. Accordingly, I dissent.