Com. v. Rightnour

• Decision Date: 08 October 1976
• Citation: 469 Pa. 107,364 A.2d 927
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Leon Ernest RIGHTNOUR, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 927

364 A.2d 927

469 Pa. 107

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Leon Ernest RIGHTNOUR, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued June 25, 1975.

Decided Oct. 8, 1976.

Carl G. Wass, Harrisburg, for appellant.

Edwin W. Frese, Jr., Deputy Dist. Atty., Harrisburg, for appellee.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The appellant's prior direct appeal to this Court resulted in an affirmance of the judgment of sentence by an equally divided court. Commonwealth v. Rightnour, 435 Pa. 104, 253 A.2d 644 (1969). Appellant later sought post-conviction relief, but his petition was dismissed on the ground that the issues sought to be raised had been 'finally litigated' within the meaning of § 1180--4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, § 4, 19 P.S. 1180--4. This appeal followed.

We are of the opinion that the former appeal did not constitute 'final litigation' under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Supra. That Act defines an issue as 'finally litigated' if '(t)he Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has ruled on the merits of the issue.' 19 P.S. 1180--4(a)(3). An even division of this Court results in affirmance of the order, judgment or decree appealed from because there is not a majority of the Court who favor reversing or modifying the action of the lower court. Thus the "subject matter with which (the Supreme Court) is dealing must remain in statu quo'.' Creamer v. Twelve Common Pleas Judges, 443 Pa. 484, 281 A.2d 57, 58 (1971), quoting First Congressional District Election, 295 Pa. 1, 144 A. 735, 739 (1928). To leave a matter undisturbed or 'in statu quo' because no majority can be mustered to do otherwise is not the same as ruling on the merits of the matter. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled similarly with regard to the availability of federal habeas corpus following that Court's affirmance, by an equal division, of a state court's decision upholding the conviction of a defendant. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). While not controlling on us in the case at bar, the reasoning of the Court lends strong support to our present conclusion.

While we thus disagree with the reason which the trial court gave for dismissing the petition seeking collateral relief, we must nevertheless affirm its order. The Post Conviction Hearing Act is designed to give a defendant convicted of crime a final opportunity to vindicate his constitutional right to due process of law in his conviction and sentence to the extent the questions raised have not been previously adjudicated or waived; it was not intended as an avenue to review ordinary rulings made during the conduct of the trial. See 19 P.S. § 1180--3(c)(12). The principal issue which appellant raised in his post-conviction petition and the sole issue presented on this appeal involves a ruling on evidence; it is not of constitutional dimension, and was not cognizable under the P.C.H.A. Commonwealth v. Schmidt, 452 Pa. 185, 299 A.2d 254 (1973); Commonwealth v. Gwyn, 449 Pa. 131, 295 A.2d 73 (1972); Commonwealth v. Smulek, 446 Pa. 277, 284 A.2d 763 (1971); Commonwealth v. Lowery, 438 Pa. 89, 263 A.2d 332 (1970); Commonwealth v. Musser, 437 Pa. 131, 262 A.2d 678 (1970).

Order affirmed.

JONES, C.J., filed a concurring opinion.

ROBERTS, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which NIX and MANDERINO, JJ., join.

JONES, Chief Justice (concurring).

I concur in the per curiam order entered today, however, I rest my concurrence on the grounds that the issue presented has in fact been 'finally litigated.' See, Sections 3 and 4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of 1966, January 25, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. 1180--3, 4.

I agree with the majority's interpretation that under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, a matter will not be deemed to be 'finally litigated' where the vote on an issue qualifying one for relief under subsection 3(c)(12) of the Act was equally divided on direct appeal. However, it is my belief that the issue raised by appellant Rightnour does not, in the first instance, qualify under the aforementioned subsection.

The holding in Commonwealth v. McCusker, 448 Pa. 382, 292 A.2d 286 (1972), very narrowly stated that expert psychiatric testimony is relevant and admissible on the issue of whether a defendant prosecuted for murder acted in the 'heat of passion.' 448 Pa. at 384, 292 A.2d at 289. The McCusker decision in no way ruled on the availability of a defense to murder such as that advanced by appellant Rightnour; that is, the defense of a 'diminished capacity.' McCusker in my view being inapplicable, there are no retroactive changes in the Applicable law such that post-conviction relief under subsection 3(c)(12) of the Act could be invoked.

ROBERTS, Justice (dissenting).

I dissent. Because appellant asserts a valid claim for relief which is cognizable under the Post Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA), ¹ the order dismissing appellant's petition without a hearing should be reversed and a new trial granted.

Appellant was tried in October 1966 and found guilty of murder of the first degree. The judgment of sentence was appealed to this Court and affirmed by an equally divided Court. Commonwealth v. Rightnour, 534 Pa. 104, 253 A.2d 644 (1969). ² In November 1969 appellant petitioned for post-conviction relief. The PCHA court dismissed without a hearing believing that the issues had been finally litigated. Appellant appealed that order to this Court.

The sole issue raised by appellant, which was also raised in his first appeal, is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing to admit certain psychiatric evidence. Appellant sought to establish that, because he suffered from mental disease at the time of the killing, he was unable to form the specific intent required for first degree murder. In Commonwealth v. McCusker, 448 Pa. 382, 292 A.2d 286 (1972), we held that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse to admit psychiatric testimony offered to show that a defendant, who was accused of murder, acted in the heat of passion. See Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa. 475, 481--82, 321 A.2d 627, 631 (1974); Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 459 Pa. 304, 308, 329 A.2d 212, 214 (1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 981, 95 S.Ct. 1411, 43 L.Ed.2d 663 (1975).

The prejudicial nature of the trial court's error is compounded in light of our decisions in Commonwealth v. Rose, 457 Pa. 380, 321 A.2d 880 (1974), and Commonwealth v. Demmitt, supra. There we held that no burden of proof requirement may be placed upon a defendant to establish affirmative defenses. The Commonwealth has the 'unshifting burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of the crime.' Commonwealth v. Rose, supra at 389, 321 A.2d at 884. Thus, in this case, if appellant had in fact presented the profferred evidence, the Commonwealth would have had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant, despite his mental disease, did have the specific intent to kill required for first degree murder. The refusal to admit this evidence was prejudicial error and entitles appellant to a new trial. The majority denies him this relief by refusing to consider the merits of his claim.

The majority correctly holds that an affirmance of a conviction by an equally divided Court does not constitute 'final litigation's under the PCHA because there is no ruling on the merits of the issues raised. See Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 93 S.Ct. 375, 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1975); Durant v. Essex Co., 74 U.S. 107, 7 Wall. 107, 19 L.Ed. 154 (1869); Etting v. Bank of United States, 24 U.S. 59, 11 Wheat. 59, 6 L.Ed. 419 (1826). However, it holds that the issue here is not cognizable in a PCHA hearing because it is not 'constitutionally based.' The majority's holding denies appellant relief just as effectively as if it were to conclude that an affirmance by an equally divided court is a denial on the merits of the claim. The majority's result violates appellant's right to an effective appeal, is neither required by the PCHA itself nor compelled by our decisions, and denies appellant the relief to which he is entitled.

Although appellant may not have a federal constitutional right to appellate review, once that right is conferred by a state, equal protection requires that the review be available to defendants in a non-discriminatory manner. Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 92 S.Ct. 410, 30 L.Ed.2d 372 (1971); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305, 86 S.Ct. 1497, 16 L.Ed.2d 577 (1966); Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Commonwealth v. DeSimone, 447 Pa. 380, 290 A.2d 93 (1972); Commonwealth v. Anderson, 441 Pa. 483, 272 A.2d 877 (1971). As the Supreme Court of the United States stated in Rinaldi:

'This Court has never held that the States are required to establish avenues of appellate review, but it is now fundamental that, once established, these avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts.'

384 U.S. at 310--11, 86 S.Ct. at 1500--01; see Mayer v. City of Chicago, supra, 404 U.S. at 193, 92 S.Ct. at 414; North Carolina v. Pearce, supra 395 U.S. at 724, 89 S.Ct. at 2080. Thus, in DeSimone, this Court held that the failure to provide transcripts to a defendant denied him his right to the "proper consideration of his claims" and "adequate and effective appellate review." 447 Pa. at 384, 290 A.2d at 96, quoting Mayer v. City of Chicago, supra 404 U.S. at 194, 92 S.Ct. at 414. The majority's holding here inflicts these same vices. Appellant, unlike all other criminal defendants, has been denied adequate and effective appellate review because no appellate court has reached the merits of his properly preserved claim.

Moreover, the PCHA clearly provides review of...