Categories: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Opinions

COMMONWEALTH v. JONES, 430 Pa. 485 (1968)

243 A.2d 420

Commonwealth v. Jones, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.April 26, 1968.
July 1, 1968.

Criminal law — Murder — Constitutional law — 5th and 14th Amendments — Guilty plea — Validity — Conviction of first degree murder — Evidence — Sufficiency.

Where, in 1950, defendant plead guilty to a charge of murder and was adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment, and in this post-conviction proceeding instituted in 1966 he contended that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered and that the evidence did not support a finding of first degree murder, it was Held that such contentions were without merit.

Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, EAGEN, O’BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 294, Jan. T., 1968, from order of Court of Oyer and Terminer of Lancaster County, March T.,

Page 486

1950, No. 48, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. William O. Jones. Order affirmed.[*]

Petition under Post Conviction Hearing Act and motions to arrest judgment of sentence entered in 1950 and for a new trial.

Petition dismissed and motion to arrest judgment denied. Defendant appealed.

[*] On December 16, 1968, the Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for a writ of certiorari.

Joseph J. Lombardo, for appellant.

Theodore A. Parker, First Assistant District Attorney, with him Clarence C. Newcomer, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, July 1, 1968:

In June 1950, the appellant, William O. Jones, plead guilty generally to the charge of murder. After a hearing before the court, he was adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment.

In May 1966, Jones instituted proceedings seeking post-conviction relief. He alleged that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered and that the evidence presented at the plea proceedings did not support a finding of first degree murder.

We have carefully studied both the trial record and the testimony offered at the post-conviction relief hearing and we find no error in the lower court’s action denying the relief requested.

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Page 487

jdjungle