COMMONWEALTH v. DeSANTIS, 472 Pa. 258 (1977)

372 A.2d 410

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. James J. DeSANTIS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.Submitted September 20, 1976.
Decided April 28, 1977.

Appeal No. 132 March Term, 1976, from the Order of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, sitting at Pittsburgh, 238 Pa. Super. 738, 357 A.2d 208, No. 205 April Term, 1975 Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Pennsylvania, Criminal Division, at Nos. 847, 902 and 951 of 1972; Lindley R. McClelland, Judge.

Harold J. Bender, Public Defender, Erie, for appellant.

Robert H. Chase, Dist. Atty., Frank J. Scutella, Asst. Dist. Atty., Erie, for appellee.

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

OPINION
PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals the dismissal of his Post-Conviction Hearing Act Petition.[1] He challenges the validity of his plea of guilty to charges of burglary and larceny on the ground that his on-the-record guilty plea colloquy was inadequate under Pa.R.Crim.P. 319. Although this claim was cognizable on direct appeal, e. g., Commonwealth v. Hines, 461 Pa. 271, 336 A.2d 280
(1975), appellant took no appeal from the judgment of sentence. In this PCHA proceeding, appellant has not alleged facts which would

Page 259

justify his failure to raise this claim on appeal.[2] Accordingly, the claim has been waived, 19 P. S. § 11804(b); see, e. g. Commonwealth v. Hines, supra, and the counseled petition was properly dismissed.

Order affirmed.

[1] Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, §§ 1 et seq., 19 P. S. § 1180-1 et seq. (Supp. 1976).
[2] Appellant’s PCHA petition asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective. Ineffectiveness of counsel is a circumstance which excuses the failure to raise an issue in a prior proceeding and precludes a finding of waiver under 19 P. S. § 1180-4(b) (Supp. 1976). Commonwealth v. Roundtree, 469 Pa. 241, 247 n. 4, 364 A.2d 1359, 1362 n. 4 (1976); Commonwealth v. Waddy, 463 Pa. 426, 429, 345 A.2d 179, 180 (1975) (plurality opinion) Commonwealth v. Wideman, 453 Pa. 119, 123, 306 A.2d 894, 896
(1973). See generally Commonwealth v. Mabie, 467 Pa. 464, 359 A.2d 369 (1976). At the PCHA hearing, however, appellant withdrew his allegation that his trial counsel had been ineffective.
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 372 A.2d 410

Recent Posts

COMMONWEALTH v. ALEXANDER, 243 A.3d 177 (2020)

243 A.3d 177 (2020) COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Keith ALEXANDER, Appellant. No. 30 EAP…

8 months ago

BODAN v. FICKETT, 24 Pa. D. & C. 3d 115 (1982)

24 Pa. D. & C. 3d 115 (1982) Bodan v. Fickett No. 2726 Civil 1981.Common…

2 years ago

IRWIN v. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, 1 Pa. 349 (1845)

Irwin v. Bank of the United States, 1 Pa. 349 (1845) Sept. 1845 · Supreme Court of…

5 years ago

DURST v. MILROY GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC., 52 A.3d 357 (2012)

52 A.3d 357 (2012) Maureen DURST and Scott Durst, Appellants v. MILROY GENERAL CONTRACTING, INC.…

7 years ago

COMMONWEALTH v. SISTRUNK, 460 Pa. 655 (1975)

334 A.2d 280 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Edward SISTRUNK a/k/a Edward Brooks, Appellant. COMMONWEALTH of…

9 years ago

McINTYRE ET AL. v. POPE ET AL., 326 Pa. 172 (1937)

191 A. 607 McIntyre et al., Appellants, v. Pope et al.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.March 25,…

9 years ago