Court Opinion

ID: 9713714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:20:34.118971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.058036
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice
(concurring).
The sole issue raised in this proceeding under the Post Conviction Hearing Act * is the validity of petitioner’s guilty plea. That issue was before us in Commonwealth v. Marsh, 440 Pa. 590, 271 A.2d 481 (1970) (Marsh I), and Commonwealth v. Marsh, 448 Pa. 292, 293 A.2d 57 (1971) (Marsh II). In Marsh I it was held that petitioner had failed to establish the facts necessary to obtain relief from his plea. However, because illegally obtained evidence was utilized at petitioner’s degree of guilt hearing, a remand was required. On remand, the trial court permitted petitioner to introduce new evidence bearing on the validity of the plea and again denied relief from the plea. In Marsh II, we passed on the merits of petitioner’s claim on the full record established on remand and affirmed the denial of relief.
Consequently, the petitioner’s claim is finally litigated, 19 P.S. § 1180-4(a) (2), and may not be raised in this *260proceeding. 19 P.S. 1180-3 (d); Commonwealth v. Slavik, 449 Pa. 424, 297 A.2d 920 (1972). Because the only-claim presented has been finally litigated, I concur in the result.

 Act of July 25, 1966, P.L. [1965] 1580, 19 P.S. §§ 1180-1 to 1180-12 (Supp.1974).