Court Opinion

ID: 9701584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:26:18.175557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:25.429367
License: Public Domain

LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
In my judgment, the P.C.H.A. court correctly held that since the petition failed to disclose any issues of arguable merit, the filing of an appeal would also be without arguable *303merit, and counsel could not be ineffective for failing to pursue such a futile act.
The majority, however, finds that “the Anders [v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)] procedure would serve no purpose were we accept the P.C. H.A. court’s position in this case.” This is absolutely incorrect, as Anders v. California was based upon, and designed to correct, the unequal treatment on appeal given those who could not afford privately-retained counsel. Appellant in the instant case had privately retained counsel up through sentencing and, in accordance with that counsel’s advice, and after being properly informed of his appellate rights by the trial court, chose not to file the post-verdict motions necessary to perfect an appeal. Anders is thus inapplicable to this case, and the P.C.H.A. court correctly found that trial counsel was not ineffective, and properly dismissed appellant petition.
The order of that court should, therefore, be affirmed.
FLAHERTY and KAUFFMAN, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.