Court Opinion

ID: 9650200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:26:54.52542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:18.906333
License: Public Domain

*258OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction of four counts of first , degree murder which arose from his participation in the slaying of four persons in Philadelphia on February 18, 1974.1 Appellant raises eight issues in this appeal, all of which are without merit.
1. That the trial court erred in not suppressing two allegedly involuntary statements which appellant made following his arrest;
2. That the trial court erred in ruling on the afternoon of the third day of trial that appellant was competent to stand trial;
3. That the trial court erred in not ordering an “inquiry” into appellant’s competency on the afternoon of the third day of trial;
4. That appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel because prior to trial, trial counsel did not file a petition (pursuant to Section 4408 of the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, Act of October 20, 1966, Special Sess. No. 3, P.L. 96, art. IV, 50 P.S. 4408) requesting that appellant be committed to a mental health facility in lieu of standing trial;
5. That appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to object to an instruction that the jury could find that appellant was sane at the time that the crimes were committed;
6. That appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel because (appellant claims that) trial counsel did not properly establish an insanity defense;
7. That appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not present evidence that appellant was intoxicated on the day of the crimes; and
*2598. That appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel did not object in post-verdict motions to the testimony of Detective Charles Andrews of the Philadelphia Police Force, who testified at the suppression hearing about information which he received from appellant’s wife concerning conversations that took place between appellant and appellant’s wife.
Judgments of sentence affirmed.
MANDERINO, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which ROBERTS and NIX, JJ., joined.

. A review of the record, conducted, pursuant to the Act of February 15, 1870, P.L. 15 § 2, 19 P.S. 1187, reveals that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict.