Com. v. Motley
| Decision Date | 23 April 1969 |
| Citation | 434 Pa. 272,252 A.2d 366 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Matthew MOTLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Herman I. Pollock, Defender, Melvin Dildine, Chief Appeals Division, Defender Association of Philadelphia, Stephen H. Shantz, Asst. Defender, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Arlen Specter, Dist.Atty., James D. Crawford, Asst.Dist.Atty., Chief Appeals Div., Roger F. Cox, Asst.Dist.Atty., Richard A. Sprague, First Asst.Dist.Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Order affirmed.
The sole issue presented by this case is whether appellant was denied the appeal rights guaranteed to him under Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963). Because the majority's decision in this case completely ignores several decisions of this Court following Douglas, I must dissent.
After appellant's trial and conviction in 1962, the trial record shows that appellant was asked, upon withdrawing his motion for a new trial, if he understood that "by withdrawing this motion at this time, you can never argue it again?" Appellant responded affirmatively. Appellant's attorneys at that point stated that they were prepared to argue had appellant so desired. In 1967, appellant filed a motion under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, alleging that he had never been adequately informed of his appeal rights. Appellant's petition was dismissed after a hearing, and this appeal followed.
Even if we assume arguendo that the on-the-record colloquy concerning the withdrawal of appellant's post-trial motions was sufficient to inform him that he was thereby waiving his appeal rights, the record is completely silent as to whether appellant was informed that on an appeal, if indigent he would have the benefit of free, court appointed counsel. As this Court unanimously said in Commonwealth v. Wilson, 430 Pa. 1, 5, 241 A.2d 760, 763 (1968): Where the record is silent on the issue in question, we have explicitly held that the Commonwealth has the burden of proving that appellant was fully informed in order to show that his waiver was knowing and intelligent. E.g., Wilson, supra; Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 431 Pa. 269, 245 A.2d 446 (1968).
At appellant's PCHA hearing, the attorney who represented him at trial who is still living was unable to testify whether appellant was ever told that he had the right to free coun...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Motley
...811 (1963). His petition was dismissed by the court of common pleas and the order affirmed per curiam by this Court. Commonwealth v. Motley, 434 Pa. 272, 252 A.2d 366 (1969). Motley then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District ......
- Commonwealth v. Motley
-
Lewandowski v. Joseph Horne Co.
...and there is no indication that any of the appellees were at any time confused or prejudiced by the form in which the appeals were filed. [434 Pa. 272] Appellees' technical argument, which at best is difficult to understand, is in my view without In summary, I would reverse the granting of ......
-
Com. v. Motley
...His petition was dismissed by the common pleas court, and this Court affirmed the dismissal by a divided vote. Commonwealth v. Motley, 434 Pa. 272, 252 A.2d 366 (1969). Thereafter appellant sought relief by way of federal habeas corpus. On September 25, 1969, the United States District Cour......