Com. v. Lofton
| Decision Date | 28 June 1972 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Clarence LOFTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Arlen Specter, Dist. Atty. (Submitted) Richard A. Sprague, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., James D. Crawford, Deputy Dist. Atty., Milton M. Stein, Chief, Appeals Div., Carolyn E. Temin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before JONES, C.J., and EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS, POMEROY, NIX and MANDERINO, JJ.
In 1947 appellant Clarence Lofton entered a plea of guilty to murder generally. After a hearing in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court, appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In 1967 appellant filed a petition seeking relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, 1 and after a hearing at which appellant was represented by counsel, his petition was denied. Although no immediate appeal was taken from the trial court's denial of appellant's petition, on May 4, 1971, this Court issued an order granting appellant's request for permission to file an appeal to this Court as if timely filed.
On this appeal appellant raises five main contentions, each of which we find to be without merit. Accordingly we affirm the trial court's denial of appellant's requests for post trial relief. 1a
Appellant's first contention is that the evidence adduced at his degree of guilt hearing was insufficient to sustain his conviction of first degree murder. This contention must be rejected. At the degree of guilt hearing appellant himself testified that he had acted as the 'lookout' while two compatriots entered a broom factory and robbed two men whom they encountered inside. During the course of this felony, one of appellant's compatriots assaulted the two robbery victims, and both victims eventually died as a result of the injuries inflicted by the assault. Appellant testified that after the robbery he divided the proceeds with his two cohorts. The Commonwealth also introduced at the degree of guilt hearing appellant's confession to the police and his testimony at a preliminary hearing, both of which fully corroborated the testimony which appellant gave at the degree of guilt hearing. This evidence was clearly sufficient to support a finding that appellant had participated in a felony murder, and was therefore guilty of first degree murder.
Appellant's second contention is that the hearing court based its finding of first degree murder on appellant's prior criminal record. This contention must also be rejected. Although the judges at appellant's degree of guilt hearing did ask questions concerning appellant's prior criminal record, these questions were advanced only after appellant's counsel had made the following concession:
Since appellant's counsel informed the court that the only question facing the panel was the appropriate sentence, we cannot conclude that the trial court's receipt of evidence concerning appellant's prior criminal record, before the entry of any formal adjudication of degree of guilt, was erroneous.
Appellant's third contention is that one member of the three judge panel which determined appellant's degree of guilt participated in the panel's decisions without having heard all of the testimony introduced at the hearing. 2 While it is true that one member of the three-judge panel was absent during most of the hearing, appellant clearly waived any right to complain about the absence of this panel member. At the hearing appellant and his counsel both specifically agreed that this judge could participate in the decision despite his anticipated absence from most of the hearing.
Appellant's fourth contention is that his guilty plea was motivated by a coerced confession. Even if appellant's confession were regarded as involuntary, 3 this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Marsh, 440 Pa. 590, 271 A.2d 481 (1970), requires that in order to be able to withdraw a guilty plea that was motivated by an unconstitutional confession, a defendant establish that he was incompetently advised by counsel to plead guilty rather than stand trial.
We note that at the time of appellant's plea both of his co-defendants had confessed and implicated appellant. 4 Both co-defendants had also testified at a pre-liminary hearing that appellant participated in the robbery of the broom factory. 5 In light of this evidence, and in light of the possibility that appellant's co-defendants would have testified against him at a trial, we cannot conclude that appellant was incompetently advised to plead guilty. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967).
Appellant's final contention is that he was ineffectively represented by counsel at his degree of guilt hearing. Appellant bases his claim of ineffective...
To continue reading
Request your trial