Com. v. Bell

• Decision Date: 04 October 1972
• Citation: 449 Pa. 1,295 A.2d 307
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Levi BELL, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 307

295 A.2d 307

449 Pa. 1

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Levi BELL, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 4, 1972.

Charles A. Lord (Submitted), Philadelphia, for appellant.

Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty. (Submitted), Richard A. Sprague, Deputy Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Asst. Dist. Atty., Milton M. Stein, Chief, Appeals Div., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

O'BRIEN, Justice.

On April 17, 1969, appellant pleaded guilty to murder generally and was found guilty of murder in the second degree. On October 10, 1969, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than seven nor more than twenty years. An appeal was filed on November 16, 1969, which appeal was continued on five separate occasions. The appeal was dismissed on January 14, 1972, but reinstated on January 20, 1972. Thereafter, appellant's counsel sought leave to withdraw as counsel for appellant. His petition for leave was accompanied by an 'Anders' brief. ¹ A copy of that Anders brief was furnished to appellant, and an opportunity was afforded to him to raise any points which he chose to raise. It is now our function to determine whether the appeal has merit. Commonwealth v. Baker, 429 Pa. 209, 239 A.2d 201 (1968).

The situation which exists in this appeal is a virtual duplication of the situation which we encountered in Commonwealth v. Zanine, 444 Pa. 361, 282 A.2d 367 (1971). As here, Zanine pled guilty to murder generally and was found guilty of murder in the second degree. His counsel concluded that no colorable basis for an appeal existed, petitioned for withdrawal and prepared an Anders brief, a copy of which was furnished to the appellant with time allowed to raise any points which he wished to raise. In Zanine, we said, at Page 363, 282 A.2d at page 368:

'By pleading guilty appellant waived his right to challenge anything but the voluntariness of his plea and the legality of his sentence. (Citing cases.) Appellant's sentence was clearly legal, and thus our principal area of inquiry is the voluntariness of appellant's plea.'

As in Zanine, an extensive on-the-record colloquy was held in this case, in full compliance with the requirements of due process and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. That colloquy established clearly that the plea was entered voluntarily, that appellant had discussed the facts and the nature of the charge with counsel, that no promises...