266 A.2d 640
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.Submitted May 25, 1970.
July 2, 1970.
Appeals — Inability of counsel to argue because of lack of transcript — Vacation of order of court below and new hearing.
In this proceeding for post-conviction relief, in which it appeared that petitioner asserted that he was unable to present argument on appeal because the court reporter who had been present at the hearing had moved to another state and no transcript of the proceeding had yet been prepared, and that the delay since the appeal was originally filed was not attributable to either party, it was Held that the order of the court below should be vacated and that a new hearing be held; in that way the court below could insure that counsel received a transcript within a reasonable time and that a fully briefed appeal would be possible.
Before BELL, C. J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.
Appeal, No. 22, May T., 1969, from order of Court of Common Pleas of York County, May T., 1966, No. 213, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Frank Hawkins. Order vacated and new hearing ordered.
Petition for post-conviction relief. Before ATKINS, P.J.
Petition dismissed. Petitioner appealed.
Gerald E. Ruth, Public Defender, for appellant.
Joseph E. Erb, Assistant District Attorney, and Harold N. Fitzkee, Jr., District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Page 444
OPINION PER CURIAM, July 2, 1970:
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County denying the application of Frank Hawkins, appellant, for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. Appellant states that he is unable to present any argument at this time because the court reporter who was present at the PCHA hearing has moved to Florida and, despite repeated requests, has not yet prepared the transcript of that proceeding. The record discloses that the first request occurred almost a year ago.
The docket entries indicate that this appeal was originally filed on July 19, 1968 and that subsequently three continuances were granted. Almost two years have elapsed since this appeal was taken, and that delay is not attributable to either party. We feel that the most effective way to move this matter on to a final disposition is to vacate the order of the court below and order that a new hearing be held. In that way the court below can ensure that counsel receives a transcript within a reasonable time and that a fully briefed appeal is possible.
It is so ordered.