Com. v. Hoffman
Decision Date | 14 July 1967 |
Citation | 209 Pa.Super. 765,426 Pa. 226,232 A.2d 623 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Richard U. T. HOFFMAN, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Richard U. T. Hoffman filed a petition on May 27, 1966 under the Post Conviction Hearing Act in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Cumberland County. In his petition, Hoffman stated, inter alia, that he was financially unable to employ an attorney to represent him in post conviction proceedings and requested appointment of counsel for that purpose. Notwithstanding this and despite section 12 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act:
Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, § 12, 19 P.S. § 1180--12 (Supp.1966), the court of oyer and terminer proceeded to consider and dismiss Hoffman's petition without appointing counsel or finding that Hoffman had means to procure his own counsel. The Superior Court with Judge Montgomery dissenting, affirmed this dismissal, Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 209 Pa.Super. 736, 226 A.2d 209 (1967) (per curiam) and the instant petition for allowance of appeal was brought.
Since there is no suggestion in this record that Hoffman had means to employ an attorney in the post conviction proceeding, * the failure of the court of oyer and terminer to appoint one to represent him was clear error. Therefore, without reaching the merits of Hoffman's petition and without reaching the question of whether Hoffman is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his petition, we reverse the Superior Court and vacate the order of the court of oyer and terminer so that an attorney may be appointed to represent Hoffman in the court of oyer and terminer.
The petition for allocatur is granted. The order of the Superior Court is reversed. The order of the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Cumberland County is vacated and the record remanded to that court with instructions to appoint counsel to represent Richard Hoffman in a post conviction proceeding at which Hoffman's eligibility for an evidentiary hearing and/or other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roach v. Bennett, 18914.
...Harper v. State, 201 So.2d 65 (Fla.1967). It is reversible error in Pennsylvania to fail to make an appointment. Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 426 Pa. 226, 232 A.2d 623 (1967). See also Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 427 Pa. 395, 235 A.2d 148 (1967) where it is pointed out that the Pennsylvania rule ......
-
Com. v. Smith
...to provide counsel to indigent petitioners filing their first collateral attack on their Judgment of Sentence. Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 426 Pa. 226, 232 A.2d 623 (1967).7 "[I]n this Commonwealth one who is indigent is entitled to the appointment of counsel to assist with an initial collater......
-
Commonwealth v. Bliss
... ... E. MacIntyre, Deputy. Dist. Atty., Harrisburg, for ... appellee ... Before ... WATKINS, President Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, ... PRICE, VAN der VOORT and SPAETH, JJ ... [239 ... Pa.Super. 349] SPAETH, Judge: ... The record in ... this case ... witnesses against him, to have the right to cross examine, ... and to offer evidence of his own. Com V. Dooley, 209 ... Pa.Super. 519, (232 A.2d 45) 1967. My court appointed counsel ... did not advire me of these rights previous to my entering a ... ...
-
Com. v. Bliss
...v. Mitchell, 427 Pa. 395, 235 A.2d 148 (1967); Commonwealth v. Richardson, 426 Pa. 419, 233 A.2d 183 (1967), and Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 426 Pa. 226, 232 A.2d 623 (1967). (Emphasis in the original.) It is also the law in Pennsylvania that if a petition alleges facts that if proved would en......