Com. v. Rohde

• Decision Date: 05 July 1979
• Citation: 402 A.2d 1025,485 Pa. 404
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. David Leland ROHDE, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 1025

402 A.2d 1025

485 Pa. 404

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. David Leland ROHDE, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 22, 1979.

Decided July 5, 1979.

[485 Pa. 406] Neil E. Jokelson, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Gary E. Hartman, Dist. Atty., for appellee.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

O'BRIEN, Justice.

In November of 1971, appellant, David Leland Rohde, entered a plea of Nolo contendere to a charge of possession of amphetamines. Following a presentence report, appellant was given a ninety-day suspended sentence with a $300 fine. No appeal from the judgment of sentence was taken.

In September of 1974, appellant filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, ¹ alleging he had not been informed of his appeal rights and his plea of Nolo contendere was not knowingly and intelligently made. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied appellant's petition, finding the conviction did not subject appellant to a continuing disability.

An appeal from the denial was taken to the Superior Court, which remanded the matter to the Court of Common Pleas for reconsideration of the petition in accordance with our decision in Commonwealth v. Doria, 468 Pa. 534, 364 A.2d 322 (1976). There, we held an allegation of severe civil and social consequences resulting from an allegedly wrongful conviction entitled a PCHA petitioner to challenge that conviction.

On remand, the Court of Common Pleas held a second evidentiary hearing. Subsequently, the court again denied appellant's petition. The court found appellant had been denied his direct appeal rights; however, as the court believed appellant had shown only the possibility, and not the actuality, of social and civil disabilities, the court held Doria was inapplicable and appellant lacked standing to challenge the allegedly unlawful conviction. The court failed to address the issue concerning appellant's plea of Nolo contendere. Superior Court affirmed and we granted appellant's petition for allowance of appeal.

Appellant first alleges that the court erred in holding he lacked standing to challenge his conviction in a PCHA petition. In Com. ex rel Ulmer v. Rundle, 421 Pa. 40, 218 A.2d 233 (1966), we held that a habeas corpus petition ² was not moot, despite the fact the sentence imposed on the alleged invalid conviction had expired. Because the original conviction would affect the duration of subsequent sentences imposed on separate crimes, we held the habeas corpus petition was not moot.

In Commonwealth v. Sheehan, 446 Pa. 35, 285 A.2d 465 (1971), the defendant had been convicted of drunken driving and fined $200, which the defendant paid. The defendant was not represented by counsel during these proceedings. Five years later he was again arrested for driving under the influence. Prior to trial, the defendant received a letter from a judge of the Court of Common Pleas informing him of "the invariable policy of the Lancaster County Court to impose a sentence of $200 fine, costs of prosecution and three months in Lancaster County Prison on all second offenders charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor." There, we held the defendant's post-verdict attack was not moot because of the Possibility of collateral criminal consequences.

In Commonwealth v. Doria, supra, we held that a collateral attack is not moot where a petition could show direct civil consequences ³ resulting from this illegal conviction. We stated:

"Our holding today gives those who can show that they have suffered collateral consequences as the result of a wrongful criminal conviction, and who have not been charged with any other criminal conduct, the same right to challenge the allegedly wrongful conviction as is afforded those who seek to challenge a previous conviction because of the adverse effect it will have upon a subsequent accusation of criminal activity. Surely, one who had led an exemplary life since being found guilty of a crime, should...