Com. ex rel. Adderley v. Myers

• Citation: 418 Pa. 366,211 A.2d 481
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Charles L. ADDERLEY, Appellant, v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania.
• Decision Date: 30 June 1965
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Page 481

211 A.2d 481 418 Pa. 366 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Charles L. ADDERLEY, Appellant,
v.
David N. MYERS, Superintendent, State Correctional
Institution, Graterford, Pennsylvania. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. June 30, 1965.

[418 Pa. 367]

Page 482

Charles L. Adderley, in pro. per.

Joseph M. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

[418 Pa. 366] Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

[418 Pa. 367] EAGEN, Justice.

On May 8, 1957, the appellant, Charles L. Adderley, was indicted for murder. ¹ On June 25, 1957, while represented by court-appointed counsel, he entered a general plea of guilty to the indictment, and, after an extensive hearing before a three-judge court, was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. No appeal from the judgment was entered.

On November 12, 1964, appellant instituted an action in habeas corpus which was dismissed by the court below. An appeal from that order is now before us.

At the original trial proceeding, wherein the degree of guilt was determined, a written confession given by the appellant to investigating police officers was introduced into evidence. The record does not establish that, before or during the period the confession was obtained, the appellant was warned of his constitutional right to remain silent or advised that he could then have the assistance of counsel. It is therefore urged that his confinement is illegal because the conviction and adjudication of guilt were based on constitutionally invalid evidence, i. e., the confession, citing Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964).

[418 Pa. 368] An examination of the trial record discloses that the confession involved was admitted without objection. It further discloses that the testimony of the appellant at trial was identical with his description of the crime given in the confession, and that his own trial testimony was sufficient in itself to justify the adjudication. Further, when questioned by one of the trial judges, the appellant reaffirmed that his confession correctly described the occurrence. Under such circumstances, the ruling in Escobedo is not determinative.

In the first place, the admission of the confession was harmless and without prejudice, in view of his own trial testimony

Page 483

Further, the right to raise now the constitutional issue has been waived.

Assuming arguendo, that the...