Summary
In Stein we found a denial of effective assistance of counsel where appellant's counsel, on an appeal to the Superior Court from a denial of relief in a PCHA proceeding, filed a xeroxed copy of a 10 page "brief" prepared by the appellant himself, with only a memorandum by counsel requesting the Superior Court to "peruse and consider said document with the same attention as if it were prepared by counsel learned in the law."
Summary of this case from Commonwealth v. MurrayOpinion
December 18, 1969.
Criminal Law — Counsel for defendant — Appeal — Xeroxed copy of brief prepared by appellant himself — Required role of counsel as an advocate.
In this case it was Held that the filing by counsel of a brief which consisted merely of a xeroxed copy of a "brief" prepared by appellant himself, supplemented by a "short further argument" based on appellant's original uncounseled post-conviction petition, did not constitute the required representation in the role of an advocate.
Before BELL, C. J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.
Petition for leave to appeal, No. 3162-A Miscellaneous Docket, from order of Superior Court, No. 109, April T., 1969, affirming order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Washington County, Sept. T., 1967, No. 365, in case of Commonwealth v. Harry J. Stein. Judgment of Superior Court vacated and case remanded.
Same case in Superior Court: 215 Pa. Super. 724.
Petition for post-conviction relief.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by McCUNE, J. Defendant appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the order of the court below. Petition for allocatur filed in Supreme Court.
William C. Porter, for petitioner.
Paul M. Petro, Assistant District Attorney, and Jess D. Costa, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Appellant's counsel in the Superior Court filed a brief which consisted of a xeroxed copy of a ten page "brief" prepared by appellant himself. Counsel attached to this a memorandum requesting the Superior Court to "peruse and consider said document with the same attention as if it were prepared by counsel learned in the law." Counsel also added a short "further argument" based on appellant's original uncounseled PCHA petition. The argument does little more than refer the court to several pages of appellant's handdrawn brief and hand-drawn PCHA petition.
This is hardly the "representation in the role of an advocate" which we require. See Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 675, 78 S.Ct. 974, 975 (1958); Commonwealth v. Stein, 436 Pa. 328, 257 A.2d 848 (1969); Commonwealth v. Stancell, 435 Pa. 301, 256 A.2d 798 (1969). Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court is vacated and the case remanded so that the Superior Court may consider the appeal upon the filing of a brief properly prepared by counsel. Commonwealth v. McFall, 436 Pa. 329, 257 A.2d 847 (1969).