Court Opinion

ID: 9712406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:53:12.267716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:11.935122
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Jacobs, J.:
Appellant asks for a new trial which the majority grants because of conflict of interest of appellant’s counsel. Appellant and two codefendants were represented by the same private counsel. At arraignment appellant pleaded not guilty and his codefendants pleaded guilty. This, the majority says, under the Supreme Court’s rule laid down in Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 406 Pa. 45, 176 A. 2d 641 (1962), as interpreted in Commonwealth v. Resinger, 432 Pa. 398, 248 A. 2d 55 (1968), precluded counsel from representing all three defendants. While this may be true as to representation at arraignment, the appellant is not asking to change his plea but requests a new trial alleging conflict of interest on the part of his counsel at trial. I am unable to find such conflict.
When appellant’s two codefendants pleaded guilty they were sentenced by the court. Several days later the appellant went to trial. At that trial the two co-defendants testified on his behalf to the effect that appellant did not participate in the burglary with which he was charged and to which they had pleaded guilty. Inasmuch as the codefendants had been sentenced, I am unable to see any conflict of interest between them and the appellant at the time of trial. As a practical matter counsel represented only the appellant at trial.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the lower court.
Wright, P. J., and Montgomery, J., join in this dissenting opinion.