Com. ex rel. Neal v. Banmiller

• Citation: 184 Pa.Super. 464,136 A.2d 471
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Paul NEAL, Appellant, v. William BANMILLER, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary.
• Decision Date: 12 November 1957
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

Page 471

136 A.2d 471

184 Pa.Super. 464

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Paul NEAL, Appellant, v. William BANMILLER, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 12, 1957.

The opinion of Judge Curran follows:

Paul Neal, a prisoner in the Eastern State Penitentiary, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on January 18, 1957, an answer was filed by the District Attorney for this county, and a hearing was held before this Court.

Relator had pleaded guilty on November 5, 1954, at Nos. 801-B, 801-C November Term, 1954, to the charges of burglary, larceny and armed robbery. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the Eastern State Penitentiary for not less than five nor more than ten years on each count, sentences to run concurrently.

The petition was prepared and filed by the relator and alleges a number of reasons as to why he is unlawfully detained. However, this Court appointed counsel to represent relator in this matter and the issue before this Court has been limited to the allegation that the relator has been deprived of his constitutional rights to be represented by counsel. Counsel for the relator, in their brief, rely mainly on the youth and alleged inexperience of the relator, and the nature of the crimes.

Prior to the commission of the crimes for which relator was sentenced to the Eastern State Penitentiary, he had been before the juvenile court a number of times beginning when he was fifteen years of age. When he was nineteen years old, he was sentenced to imprisonment for committing the crimes of burglary and larceny. After serving a portion of the prison sentence he was paroled, and while on parole, along with four other persons, he committed the offenses for which he is presently confined. His four accomplices were apprehended on the same date the offense was committed, October 12, 1954, and pleaded guilty to the same crimes as charged against relator. At the time their guilty pleas were entered, they freely and in open court told of the occurrences that took place at the 'Felsburg Store and Lunch' in Minersville, Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, on October 12, 1954. At a later date the relator was apprehended in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, having eluded the police on the date of the offense, and was returned to Schuylkill County where he entered his plea of guilty. At this time he was about twenty-three years old, was aware of the fact that his accomplices had previously entered guilty pleas and testified concerning the crimes, and he too freely recited the details of the commission of the crimes in open court.

Counsel for relator cite the case of Uveges v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 335 U.S. 437, 69 S.Ct. 184, 93 L.Ed. 127, and rely strongly upon it. However, the present case is properly decided in accordance with the case of Commonwealth ex rel. Popovich v. Claudy, 170 Pa.Super. 482, 87 A.2d 489, 491. In that case the Court held, 'To invalidate a plea of guilty in noncapital cases by reason of denial of due process arising from failure to provide a prisoner with counsel by the courts of this Commonwealth, the prisoner must establish that for want of benefit of counsel an ingredient of unfairness actively operated in the process that resulted in his confinement.' The Court further held that the factors of youth and inexperience of the relator and the seriousness of the crimes do not per se establish any element of unfairness in the proceedings resulting in his confinement. Suffice it to say, the relator has failed to meet this burden, and, on the contrary, the minutes of the Court taken at the time the guilty plea was entered indicate that relator was fully aware of his rights and voluntarily waived them without any coercion or promise. The Court examined the relator as follows:

'Q. And you understand that you have been indicted in this County in 801-B--that is the number of the indictment charging you with burglary and larceny--and 801-C, charging you with armed robbery. Are you aware of that? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. You understand that you are entering a plea of guilty? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. You are aware of that? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And you are entering a plea of guilty without counsel? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And you are waiving your right to be represented by counsel? A. Yes.

'Q. You are fully aware of that? A. Yes.

'Q. Doing that voluntarily? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And it is your desire to do that? A. Yes, sir.

'Q. The District Attorney's office called my...