Court Opinion

ID: 9751587
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:38:16.156662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:52.537060
License: Public Domain

Opinion by
Mr. Justice O’Brien,
Appellant, Arthur Lee Davis, was arrested in connection with a milk delivery truck robbery in Philadelphia. He pled not guilty and, after waiving a jury trial, was convicted on counts of aggravated robbery and burglary and sentenced to serve concurrent one and one-half to five year terms on each charge. No post-trial motions or appeals were taken at that time.
Following a 1971 Post Conviction Hearing Act petition, appellant filed nunc pro tunc post-trial motions, alleging denial of his right to confrontation and denial of effective assistance of counsel. An evidentiary hearing was held, after which his post-trial motions were denied. Appeal to the Superior Court resulted in a per curiam opinionless affirmance. Judge Packet. wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judges Hoppman and Spaulding. 222 Pa. Superior Ct. 434, 295 A.2d 155 (1972). We granted allocatur to examine two issues raised by appellant.
At trial, the testimony of the milk truck driver, the complaining witness, was introduced by stipulation between defense counsel and the district attorney. It was stipulated that if the driver were present, he would testify that two men, one armed with a gun, entered his truck and robbed him of $200. It was further stipulated that at the preliminary hearing, the driver had identified appellant as one of the men.
Appellant first contends that his counsel’s stipulation to this testimony, which placed him at the scene of the crime and named him as a participant, was in *197fact a stipulation of guilt, despite appellant’s plea of not guilty. Appellant further contends that since the testimony entered by stipulation was so damaging, the admission of the stipulation should have been surrounded by safeguards similar to those attending the entry of a guilty plea.
With this contention we agree. While it is true that appellant did not plead guilty, and, therefore, it was still possible for the court to find him not guilty, such a verdict would have been extremely unlikely. Not only did appellant stipulate to the testimony that would have been offered by the complaining witness, thereby giving up the opportunity to cross-examine the witness for purposes of attacking his credibility, his memory, or his capacity to observe, but also appellant offered no defense in his own behalf. Under such circumstances, the stipulation to the witness’s testimony made the outcome a foregone conclusion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit came to much the same conclusion in Julian v. United States, 236 F.2d 155 (1956), and held that when the defense counsel stipulates to facts which will support a conviction of his client, Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the court inquire whether the defendant understands the charges against him and voluntarily acquiesces in the stipulations. Our Rule 319(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure has a similar requirement.
Since no such on-the-record colloquy appears in this case, we are faced with a situation analogous to silent-record cases involving a challenge to a guilty plea entered after our decision in Commonwealth ex rel. West v. Rundle, 428 Pa. 102, 237 A.2d 196 (1968). In such cases, we have held that the burden is on the Commonwealth to establish that the defendant’s decision to plead guilty, thereby waiving many of his constitutional rights, was knowingly and voluntarily *198made. Similarly, in cases such as the instant one, the Commonwealth must show that appellant’s decision to waive his valuable Sixth Amendment right to confront the Commonwealth’s witnesses against him, was a knowing and understanding one.
At the PCHA hearing, appellant claimed that he was never informed of his right to demand the presence of the complainant and to have him cross-examined by his attorney. However, appellant’s trial counsel rebutted this evidence by testifying that he had discussed the consequences of the stipulation with appellant and explained to him that in his opinion the complainant’s testimony would be even more damaging if presented in person. According to counsel, appellant told counsel that he should do whatever he thought best. Since the record also indicates that appellant had been involved in several other cases in which he had been represented by the same attorney, and, therefore, was not unfamiliar with trial procedure, we believe that the record supports the court’s findings that when appellant made his decision to waive his right to confront the complaining witness in this case, he was totally aware of the consequences of that decision.
Appellant next contends that he was denied effective representation of counsel. In making this argument, he emphasizes counsel’s decision to stipulate to the testimony of the complaining witness and the fact that counsel offered absolutely no defense at trial, limiting his presentation to the following closing statement: “The defense rests. If your Honor please, this man has been in jail for almost a year. This man has a narcotics problem.”
The dissenters in the Superior Court were of the opinion that counsel’s trial strategy amounted to a decision to have appellant plead guilty, a decision which should have been left to appellant. As indicated *199previously, we agree with the dissenters’ conclusion that, for all practical purposes, trial counsel’s strategy amounted to a decision to have his client plead guilty. But we have already determined that there is sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that appellant knowingly and voluntarily participated in that decision. The strategy was obviously designed to obtain a more lenient sentence for appellant. In view of the sentence which appellant received and in view of the fact that counsel was successful in sustaining demurrers to several narcotics charges against appellant which stemmed from the discovery of narcotics on his person when he was searched at the police station after his arrest for the milk truck robbery, we cannot say that counsel’s representation was without some reasonable basis designed to effectuate appellant’s interests. Commonwealth v. Hill, 450 Pa. 477, 301 A.2d 587 (1973); Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Mahoney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967).
Judgment of sentence affirmed.
Mr. Justice Eagen concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Manderino took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.