Com. v. Mitchell
Decision Date | 14 November 1967 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Clarence MITCHELL, Appellant. |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert W. Duggan, Dist. Atty., Edwin J. Martin, Charles B. Watkins, Asst. Dist. Attys., Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
In 1963 appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment after a plea of guilty to a charge of murder. He subsequently filed a habeas corpus petition which was denied and that denial affirmed by this Court. See Commonwealth ex rel. Mitchell v. Rundle, 416 Pa. 296, 204 A.2d 923 (1965). A January 13, 1965 petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. 1180--1 et seq. (Supp.1966) was denied by the Quarter Sessions Court of Allegheny County.
Although appellant requested appointment of counsel by the trial court and indicated that he was without funds to procure his own, neither the record below nor the lower court opinion indicate that this request was honored. Appellant then appealed to this Court is forma pauperis. Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 426 Pa. 226, 232 A.2d 623 (1967) (per curiam) and Commonwealth v. Richardson, 426 Pa. 419, 233 A.2d 183 (1967) (per curiam) clearly hold that section 12 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act imposes a mandatory requirement upon the trial court to appoint counsel for an indigent post conviction applicant.
An examination of appellant's previous habeas corpus petition also demonstrates that he was not at that time afforded counsel. Our Richardson and Hoffman decisions at least require that an indigent be granted one appointment of counsel to aid in the prosecution of his post conviction attempt. Therefore, as we did in Richardson and Hoffman, we vacate the order below and remand the record for appointment of counsel without reaching the merits of appellant's petition.
We pause to note that the mandatory appointment requirement is a salutary one and best comports with efficient judicial administration and serious consideration of a prisoner's claims. Counsel's liability to frame the issues in a legally meaningful fashion insures the trial court that all relevant considerations will be brought to its attention. As recognized by the American Bar Association Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Post-Conviction Remedies,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pennsylvania v. Finley
...fashion insures the trial court that all relevant considerations will be brought to its attention. . . ." Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 427 Pa. 395, 397, 235 A.2d 148, 149 (1967). The Pennsylvania Legislature recognized the importance of collateral review by adopting the PCHA, which requires ef......
-
Giarratano v. Murray
...a mandatory requirement upon the trial court to appoint counsel for an indigent post conviction applicant." Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 427 Pa. 395, 235 A.2d 148, 149 (1967); see Finley, 481 U.S. at ----, 107 S.Ct. at 1995, 95 L.Ed.2d at 548. Similarly, Virginia courts may appoint counsel to ......
-
Commonwealth v. Henkel
...shall appoint counsel if satisfied that the petitioner has no means to procure counsel.”). Shortly thereafter, in Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 427 Pa. 395, 235 A.2d 148 (1967), the Supreme Court impliedly recognized that this right included the right to effective representation. Id. at 149 (“[......
-
Com. v. Brown
...articulate statement of claims are functions of an advocate that are inappropriate for a judge, or his staff." Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 427 Pa. 395, 397, 235 A.2d 148, 149 (1967). See also Commonwealth v. Finley, 497 Pa. 332, 335, 440 A.2d 1183, 1184 (1981) ("Counsel for a PCHA petitioner ......