Court Opinion

ID: 9541416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:25:11.507237+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:51.173929
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
It is clear that the order of the PCHA court must be vacated and the case remanded for appointment of counsel.
This Court has repeatedly held that a PCHA court may not summarily dispose of an uncounselled petition unless
“ ‘a previous petition involving the same issue or issues has been finally determined adversely to the petitioner and he . . . was represented by counsel in proceedings *517thereon.’ Pa.R.Crim.P. 1504. See Commonwealth v. Smith, 459 Pa. 583, 330 A.2d 851 (1975); Commonwealth v. Haynes, 234 Pa.Super. 556, 340 A.2d 462 (1975).”
Commonwealth v. Adams, 465 Pa. 389, 391, 350 A.2d 820, 821-22 (1976). Accord, Commonwealth v. Sangricco, 490 Pa. 126, 415 A.2d 65 (1980). See also Commonwealth v. Triplett, 467 Pa. 510, 359 A.2d 392 (1976); Commonwealth v. Schmidt, 436 Pa. 139, 259 A.2d 460 (1969); Commonwealth v. Minnick, 436 Pa. 42, 258 A.2d 515 (1969). Moreover, appellant must be afforded an evidentiary hearing if the facts alleged in the petition, if proven, would entitle appellant to relief. Post-Conviction Hearing Act, 19 P.S. § 1180-9; Commonwealth v. Sherard, 483 Pa. 183, 394 A.2d 971 (1978); Commonwealth v. Yocham, 473 Pa. 445, 375 A.2d 325 (1977) (citing cases).
WILKINSON, J., joins in this concurring opinion.