From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Haywood

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 7, 1971
272 A.2d 727 (Pa. 1971)

Opinion

January 7, 1971.

Criminal Law — Practice — Post-conviction proceeding — Petitioner not represented by counsel — Final litigation of issues — Post Conviction Hearing Act.

Where a PCHA petitioner is not represented by counsel an adverse decision on his petition is not a final litigation of the issues there presented within the meaning of § 4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act.

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

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

Petition for leave to appeal, No. 68A Miscellaneous Docket, from order of Superior Court, No. 681, Oct. T., 1968, affirming order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, March T., 1965, Nos. 1190 to 1193, inclusive, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Willie Haywood. Order of Superior Court reversed and case remanded.

Same case in Superior Court: 214 Pa. Super. 717.

Petition for post-conviction relief. Before GUERIN, P. J.

Petition dismissed. Petitioner appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the order of the court below, opinion per curiam. Petition for allocatur filed with Supreme Court.

No oral argument was made nor brief submitted for appellant.

James D. Crawford, Deputy District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.


Petitioner, while represented by counsel, pleaded guilty to charges of aggravated robbery, carrying a concealed deadly weapon and assault with intent to kill. He was duly convicted and sentenced. The present petition for allocatur stems from the affirmance by the Superior Court, without opinion, of the dismissal of Haywood's second petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P. S. § 1180 et seq. In dismissing the PCHA petition, the hearing court refused to consider, inter alia, Haywood's allegation that his guilty plea had been unlawfully induced for the reason that that issue had been finally litigated in connection with Haywood's first PCHA petition. The first petition, however, had been dismissed without the appointment of counsel or an evidentiary hearing. Where a PCHA petitioner is not represented by counsel an adverse decision on his petition is not a final litigation of the issues there presented within the meaning of Sec. 4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act. Commonwealth v. Seymour, 436 Pa. 159, 161, 259 A.2d 676 (1969); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 212 Pa. Super. 158, 162, 239 A.2d 867 (1968).

The petition for allocatur is, therefore, granted, the order of the Superior Court is reversed and the case is remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia for consideration on its merits of Haywood's allegation that his guilty plea was unlawfully induced.

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


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Haywood

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 7, 1971
272 A.2d 727 (Pa. 1971)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Haywood

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth v. Haywood, Petitioner

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 7, 1971

Citations

272 A.2d 727 (Pa. 1971)
272 A.2d 727

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Walker

In the event it is determined that Walker did not knowingly and voluntarily waive these rights, Walker would…

Commonwealth v. Smith

Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 426 Pa. 229, 232 A.2d 624 (1967). Where, however, a PCHA petitioner is not…