Commonwealth ex rel. Davis v. Rundle

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Davis v. Rundle

203 Pa. Super. 451

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 24, 1964

DocketAppeal, No. 337

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 Pa. Super. 451 (Commonwealth ex rel. Davis v. Rundle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth ex rel. Davis v. Rundle, 203 Pa. Super. 451 (Pa. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the order of the court below refusing a writ of habeas corpus to the appellant.

The appellant entered a plea of guilty to an indictment charging burglary and larceny. He was sentenced by the court below to pay a fine of $100.00 plus costs of prosecution, and to serve from two to four years in the State Correctional Institution at Philadelphia from the date of his commitment, January 25, 1962.

In the opinion of the court below it is stated that appellant made no request to have counsel appointed to represent him at his trial and that he made an intelligent and understanding waiver of the right to counsel. The writ was refused by the court below on the authority of Com. ex rel. Craig v. Banmiller, 410 Pa. 584, 189 A. 2d 875, and Com. ex rel. Simon v. Maroney, 405 Pa. 562, 176 A. 2d 94. It has subsequently [453]*453been determined that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. ed. 2d 799, is retroactive.

This case is therefore remanded to the court below “for further consideration in the light of Gideon v. Wainwright” and in light of our opinion filed June 23, 1964, in Com. ex rel. Goodfellow v. Rundle, 203 Pa. Superior Ct. 419, 201 A. 2d 615, as finally determined by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on our certification.

Specific findings should be made by the court below on the following: (1) whether the petitioner had counsel, and if not, whether he was told by the judge, the district attorney or other person that counsel would be appointed upon request; (2) whether he requested counsel and if so when, where and of whom the request was made; (3) whether or not the petitioner was indigent, or unable to obtain counsel for any other reason; (4) whether or not the petitioner waived counsel in writing or orally, and (5) all other relevant circumstances relating to his capacity and intention to waive counsel.

Order reversed and cause remanded with a procedendo.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the order of the court below refusing a writ of habeas corpus to the appellant.

The appellant entered a plea of guilty to an indictment charging burglary and larceny. He was sentenced by the court below to pay a fine of $100.00 plus costs of prosecution, and to serve from two to four years in the State Correctional Institution at Philadelphia from the date of his commitment, January 25, 1962.

In the opinion of the court below it is stated that appellant made no request to have counsel appointed to represent him at his trial and that he made an intelligent and understanding waiver of the right to counsel. The writ was refused by the court below on the authority of Com. ex rel. Craig v. Banmiller, 410 Pa. 584, 189 A. 2d 875, and Com. ex rel. Simon v. Maroney, 405 Pa. 562, 176 A. 2d 94. It has subsequently [453]*453been determined that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. ed. 2d 799, is retroactive.

This case is therefore remanded to the court below “for further consideration in the light of Gideon v. Wainwright” and in light of our opinion filed June 23, 1964, in Com. ex rel. Goodfellow v. Rundle, 203 Pa. Superior Ct. 419, 201 A. 2d 615, as finally determined by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on our certification.

Specific findings should be made by the court below on the following: (1) whether the petitioner had counsel, and if not, whether he was told by the judge, the district attorney or other person that counsel would be appointed upon request; (2) whether he requested counsel and if so when, where and of whom the request was made; (3) whether or not the petitioner was indigent, or unable to obtain counsel for any other reason; (4) whether or not the petitioner waived counsel in writing or orally, and (5) all other relevant circumstances relating to his capacity and intention to waive counsel.

Order reversed and cause remanded with a procedendo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 Pa. Super. 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-davis-v-rundle-pasuperct-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack