Commonwealth v. Jones

• Decision Date: 30 December 1971
• Citation: 447 Pa. 228,286 A.2d 892
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert C. JONES, Appellant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

286 A.2d 892

447 Pa. 228

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Robert C. JONES, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

December 30, 1971.

Michael J. Perozous (submitted), Xekellis, Perezous & Mongiovi, Lancaster, for appellant.

Clarence C. Newcomer, Dist. Atty. (submitted), Henry J. Rutherford First Asst. Dist. Atty., Lancaster, for appellee.

Before BELL, C.J., and JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS Justice.

On September 9, 1930, following a trial by jury, appellant Robert C. Jones was convicted of first degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. No post trial motions were filed nor was a direct appeal taken.

In 1967 appellant fled a PCHA petition, ^[1] alleging that he was denied his constitutional right of appeal under Douglas ^[2] because his privately retained counsel failed to inform him of such a right. ^[3] The hearing court found that appellant had knowingly waived his right to appeal and denied relief. ^[4] This appeal followed.

Appellant argues on this appeal that the hearing court improperly placed upon appellant in this silent record case the burden of demonstrating that his failure to exercise his Douglas rights was not knowing and intelligent. We agree with appellant that such an allocation of the burden of proof offends the constitutionally mandated federal standards of waiver, and accordingly we vacate the order of dismissal and remand for a hearing consistent with this opinion.

It is firmly and definitively established that this defendant has a constitutionally-guaranteed right of access to the appeal process. That right, established by Douglas v. California, was made fully retroactive in Smith v. Crouse, 378 U.S. 584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1964) (per curiam); Commonwealth ex rel. Stevens v. Myers, 419 Pa. 1, 213 A.2d 613 (1965).

Thus the dispositive issue here in whether the defendant effectively waived his constitutional right of appeal. And since a federal constitutional right is involved, federal standards of waiver must be applied. Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 439, 83 S.Ct. 855, 849, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Rice v. Olson, 324 U.S. 786, 791, 65 S.Ct. 989, 992, 89 L.Ed.2d 1367 (1945).

The federal standards of waiver that control this case are quite explicit. In Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), the United States Supreme Court held that the waiver of a constitutional right must be 'intelligent and knowing.' Amplifying that decision the Supreme Court ruled in Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962) that:

'. . . (p)resuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. The record must Show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was Offered counsel but Intelligently and Understandingly rejected the offer. Anything less is Not a waiver.' (Emphasis added.)

Id. at 516, 82 S.Ct. at 890. Thus we are constitutionally unable in silent record cases to place upon petitioner the burden of demonstrating that his failure to exercise his Douglas rights was not knowing and intelligent since this would be '(p)resuming waiver from a silent record.'

This Court has specifically recognized that we are constitutionally compelled to apply the above described federal standards of waiver. In Commonwealth v. Wilson, 430 Pa. 1, 241 A.2d 760 (1968), this Court held that '. . . the burden of demonstrating a waiver . . . where, as here, the record is silent . . . is placed upon the Commonwealth. . . .' Id. at 3, 541 A.2d at 962. And we have followed our holding in Wilson in numerous other cases. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Norman, Pa., 285 A.2d 523 (1971); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 442 Pa. 512, 276 A.2d 537 (1971); Commonwealth v. Sprangle, 442 Pa. 271, 275 A.2d 114 (1971); Commonwealth ex rel. Johnson v. Rundle, 440 Pa. 485, 270 A.2d 183 (1970); Commonwealth v. Gist, 433 Pa. 101, 249 A.2d 351 (1969); Commonwealth v. Zaffine, 432 Pa. 435, 248 A.2d 5 (1968); Commonwealth v. Ritchey, 431 Pa. 269, 245 A.2d 446 (1968); Commonwealth v. Mumford, 430 Pa. 451, 243 A.2d 443 (1968); Commonwealth v. Tolbert, 430 Pa. 167, 242 A.2d 265 (1968); Commonwealth v. Stewart, 430 Pa. 7, 241 A.2d 764 (1968).

The federal standards of waiver continue to apply irrespective of whether the individual who seeks to vindicate his Douglas rights was represented by court-appointed or private counsel. In Commonwealth v. Ezell, 431 Pa. 101, 244 A.2d 646 (1968), this Court was confronted with the suggestion that in Post-Douglas cases involving privately retained counsel at trial the burden should be on the defendant to show the absence of a constitutionally valid waiver. This Court specifically rejected that argument and held: 'Nor do we think that the requirements of Wilson and Stewart simply become relaxed because appellant was able to afford private trial counsel.' Id. at 104, 244 A.2d at 647. The constitutionally mandated result we reached in Ezell has even more compelling force in this instance, because the trial in 1930 predates Douglas by over three decades. The gross unfairness and manifest unreality in presuming in this 1930 case a waiver of a constitutional right that was not announced until a third of a century later is strikingly self-evident. As this Court said in Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 429 Pa. 89, 239 A.2d 793 (1968):

'It would be manifestly unfair to hold appellant to a waiver when this waiver is alleged to have occurred at a time when neither the defendant nor his attorney had any way of knowing that there existed a right to be waived.'

Id. at 95, 239 A.2d at 796. See also O'Connor v. Ohio, 385 U.S. 92, 87 S.Ct. 252, 17 L.Ed.2d 189 (1966); Commonwealth v. Baity, 428 Pa. 306, 237 A.2d 172 (1968).

We must reject in this Pre-Douglas case, as we did in the Post-Douglas case of Ezell, the suggestion that the burden of proving waiver should shift to the defendant because he retained private counsel at trial. It is clear that for the purposes of allocating the burden of proving waiver of the right of appeal, whether a defendant was represented by court-appointed or private counsel is distinction without legal significance. As the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice point out, 'Once a lawyer has undertaken the representation of an accused his duties and obligations are the same whether he is privately retained, appointed by the court, or serving in a legal aid or defender system.' ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to The Prosecution Function and The Defense Function, § 3.9 (The Defense Function) (Approved Draft, 1971).

Moreover any attempt to arbitrarily distinguish between court-appointed and privately retained counsel creates grave constitutional and public policy problems. To remove the burden of proof from the Commonwealth and place it instead upon the defendant who retains private counsel at trial is as repugnant to the equal protection clause as was the invidious discrimination against indigents that Douglas required be eliminated. Douglas guaranteed that an indigent defendant would have the same access to the appeal process as the non-indigent defendant. To place a substantially more onerous burden on a defendant with privately retained counsel than a defendant with court-appointed counsel creates an inverse discrimination that favors defendants with court-appointed counsel. The United States Supreme Court held that such inverse discrimination violates the equal protection clause:

'The State is not powerless to enforde judgments against those financially unable to pay a fine; Indeed, a different result would amount to inverse discrimination since it would enable an indigent to avoid both the fine and imprisonment for nonpayment whereas other defendants must always suffer one or the other conviction. . . .' (Emphasis added.)

Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 399, 91 S.Ct. 668, 671, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) quoting from Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 244--245, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 2024, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970). In addition, a purported distinction would tend to discourage defendants of marginal means from retaining private counsel. It would be to their advantage to seek court-appointed counsel and with such counsel then enjoy the favorable burden of establishing waiver not equally available to a defendant with self-retained counsel.

In applying the constitutional principles of waiver required by Johnson v. Zerbst and Carnley v. Cochran, our determination today is completely consistent with this Court's previous decisions making it incumbent upon the Commonwealth to establish waiver in silent record cases. See Commonwealth v. Norman, supra; Commonwealth v. Wilson, supra; Commonwealth v. Cheeks, supra; Commonwealth ex rel. O'Lock v. Rundle, 415 Pa. 515, 204 A.2d 439 (1964). In addition the result we reach today is clearly in harmony with the consensus of the Circuit Courts of Appeals who have addressed the issue:

'We think the only practical, logical and fair interpretation to be given to Douglas v. California is that it imposes upon the state a duty to warn every person convicted of crime of his right to appeal and his right to prosecute his appeal without expense to him by counsel appointed by the state, if he is indigent.'

United States ex erl. Smith v. McMann, 417 F.2d 648, 654 (2nd Cir. 1968); Williams v. Coiner, 392 F.2d 210 (4th Cir. 1968); Wynn v. Page, 369 F.2d 930 (10th Cir. 1966). ^[5] Furthermore, our holding here is entirely consistent with the position taken by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in United States ex rel. O'Brien v. Maroney, 423 F.2d 865 (3rd Cir. 1970). The court there repeatedly emphasized its finding that On the record the defendant 'had knowledge of his right of appeal' and 'agreed with and acquiesced in his cou...