Opinion
Submitted March 17, 1965.
April 20, 1965.
Criminal law — Constitutional law — 6th and 14th Amendments — Practice — Murder — Plea of guilty — Effect — Lack of counsel at earlier stages of case — Claim of ineffective counsel at trial.
1. Where the relator in this habeas corpus proceeding was convicted of murder on his plea of guilty, made when he was represented by counsel, and contended years later in this habeas corpus proceeding that his constitutional rights were violated in that he was not represented by counsel at the magistrate's hearing or the coroner's inquest, was not permitted to procure counsel at the time of his arrest and was without counsel at the time of his confession; and that his counsel appointed at trial was inadequate, it was Held that the court below had properly dismissed the petition.
2. To support the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, it must be found that counsel's conduct amounted to a denial of due process of law. [568-9]
Mr. Justice COHEN dissented.
Before BELL, C. J. MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 37, March T., 1965, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1964, No. 2502, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Charles William Jones v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Petition dismissed, opinion by ELLENBOGEN, P. J. Relator appealed.
Charles William Jones, appellant, in propria persona.
Edwin J. Martin, Assistant District Attorney, and Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for appellee.
Charles William Jones in 1958 pleaded guilty to the brutal murder of a night watchman during the course of a burglary of the Black Linen Service Company premises, which burglary netted him $2.32 from the coin box of a pop machine. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, which was refused and he has appealed to this Court urging that his constitutional rights were violated in that (1) he was not represented by counsel at the magistrate's hearing; (2) he was not represented by counsel at the coroner's inquest; (3) he was not permitted to procure counsel at the time of his arrest; (4) he was without counsel at the time of his confession; and (5) counsel appointed at trial was inadequate.
With regard to contentions (1) to (4), inclusive, it is to be noted that the alleged failure to have counsel at the preliminary proceedings formed no basis for the petitioner's later conviction, Commonwealth v. Patrick, 416 Pa. 437; Commonwealth ex rel. Maisenhelder v. Rundle, 414 Pa. 11; and Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Rundle, 416 Pa. 321. The conviction was predicated entirely on his plea of guilty, made when he did have counsel, which representation he does not attack except to make the general statement that the representation was inadequate.
Petitioner does not indicate in what manner the trial counsel failed him. This court very recently stated in Commonwealth ex rel. LaRue v. Rundle, 417 Pa. 383, 207 A.2d 829, "To support the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus on an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel, it must be found that counsel's conduct amounted to a denial of due process of law. Commonwealth ex rel. Wherry v. Maroney, 201 Pa. Super. 441, 447, 193 A.2d 839, 841-42 (1963), allocatur denied, 201 Pa. Super. xxvii; Commonwealth ex rel. Schenck v. Banmiller, 190 Pa. Super. 467, 154 A.2d 320 (1959), allocatur denied, 190 Pa. Super. xxvi, cert. denied, 363 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 1623 (1960). The mere fact that petitioner is of the opinion that his trial was improperly conducted by his counsel does not constitute grounds for the issuance of a writ."
The lower court stated: "The record shows that relator was represented by Attorney Boscia at trial. This court knows Mr. Boscia to be competent; that he has represented many defendants in homicide matters skillfully and competently. We, therefore, find that the relator was represented by adequate counsel."
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice COHEN dissents.