Court Opinion

ID: 9709155
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:41:33.212694+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:46.449040
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
dissenting.
Under the guise of the waiver doctrine, the majority denies appellant review of his PCHA allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of the right against self-incrimination because of a technical defect in appellant’s PCHA petition. This nineteenth century view of pleading violates the Post-Conviction Hearing Act * and distorts principles of waiver.
Section 1180-5(a)(l) of the Act requires a petitioner to state “all facts in support of the alleged error on which the petition is based.” Because appellant did not set forth in his petition facts in support of his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, the majority concludes that appellant has waived his allegations. To the contrary, waiver occurs only when a party fails to raise an issue at the appropriate *207time. See Commonwealth v. Clair, 458 Pa. 418, 326 A.2d 272 (1974) (trial error waived if not objected to at trial); Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975) (trial error waived if not raised on post-verdict motions as required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 1123(a)); Post Conviction Hearing Act, § 1180-4 (issues not raised properly on direct appeal or in PCHA petition deemed waived). In his petition, appellant raised the issue of ineffectiveness of counsel; what he failed to do was allege underlying facts. His omission was therefore not a waiver but a failure to comply with the pleading requirement of § 1180-5 of the PCHA.
In denying appellant review, the majority ignores section 1180-7 of the PCHA, which provides:
“The court may grant leave to amend or withdraw the petition at any time. Amendment shall be freely allowed in order to achieve substantial justice. No petition may be dismissed for want of particularity unless the petitioner is first given an opportunity to clarify his petition.”
Accord, Commonwealth v. Satchell, 430 Pa. 443, 243 A.2d 381 (1968); Commonwealth v. Gates, 429 Pa. 453, 240 A.2d 815 (1968); Commonwealth v. Stokes, 426 Pa. 265, 232 A.2d 193 (1967). The purpose of the requirement that a petitioner state underlying facts is to alert the PCHA court and the Commonwealth to the nature of the allegations raised. Appellant’s allegation that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel apparently satisfied this purpose, because the Commonwealth defended on the merits rather than seek dismissal for want of particularity. Indeed, had the Commonwealth sought dismissal of the petition on this basis, the PCHA court would have been obliged under PCHA § 1180-7 to permit appellant to clarify his position. Yet the majority now finds appellant’s petition fatally defective without granting him the opportunity to clarify as required by statute. Where neither the PCHA court nor the Commonwealth detected any prejudice in appellant’s recitation of facts, it certainly exalts notions of technical sufficiency of pleadings over substance to hold that appellant waived his right to review by neglecting to support his allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel.
*208I dissent and would reach the merits of appellant’s allegations.

 Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965), 1580, §§ 1 et seq., 19 P.S. §§ 1180-1 et seq. (Supp.1978).