Court Opinion

ID: 9639790
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:47:57.068777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:21.950171
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Chief Justice Bell:
Defendant, while represented by counsel, pled guilty to robbery and to several related crimes. Approximately a year later, he filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, contending that his guilty plea, and therefore his sentence, was unconstitutional because the trial Judge participated in the plea bargaining and the probable sentence.
It has been a frequent practice in Pennsylvania for countless years for a defendant’s attorney and the District Attorney and the trial Judge to have a conference and in many cases agree on a plea and a sentence. Provided this conference is requested by the defendant’s attorney and the district attorney is present throughout all these conferences and the agreement was fairly arrived at — and not by chicanery, partiality, politics or compulsion or concealment of material facts as to each *58and all of which the burden of proof would be upon the defendant — it would result in greatly shortening the time of trial and eliminating the practical possibility that a guilty man. may be acquitted. Furthermore, it would punish the guilty, give some additional protection to law-abiding citizens, expedite litigation, and avoid or reduce backlogs* — and for each and all these reasons, benefit Society. Moreover, in practical effect, it would in very many cases also benefit the accused by enabling him to obtain a lighter sentence than if he were tried and convicted.
For these reasons, I very, very strongly dissent to this newly created prohibition of a long-standing practice which has so often produced so many benefits.

 In Philadelphia, in 1968, out of a total of 267 homicide cases which were disposed of, approximately 49 percent were disposed of by and after pleas of guilty. Over one-half of these guilty pleas Were made after a conference between the defense attorney, the district attorney and the trial Judge.
As of April 1, 1969, there is a backlog of 284 untried homicide cases in Philadelphia. If approximately 50 percent of these cannot be disposed of by way of a conference between the defense counsel, the district attorney and the trial Judge, the backlog^ in Philadelphia in this class of case will be tremendous.
I note parenthetically that the law is well settled that a trial Judge is not bound by any agreement between the defense counsel and the district attorney that if a guilty plea is entered, the district attorney will agree to or will recommend a specific sentence, nor would he be bound even if he had participated in the conference.