Commonwealth ex rel. Lewis v. Maroney

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Lewis v. Maroney

215 A.2d 629, 420 Pa. 39, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 732

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 4, 1966

DocketAppeal, No. 216

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 215 A.2d 629 (Commonwealth ex rel. Lewis v. Maroney) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme 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. Lewis v. Maroney, 215 A.2d 629, 420 Pa. 39, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 732 (Pa. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

The appellant, William Lewis, on December 6, 1963, While represented by counsel, plead guilty to an indictment charging him with the crime of voluntary man[40]*40slaughter. . On January 29, 1964, he appeared in court with his counsel for the purpose of being sentenced. The court proceeded to hear testimony on the part of the Commonwealth and on behalf of the defendant, after, which the court sentenced Lewis to serve an indeterminate term in a state correctional institution, for a term of six to twelve years. No motion to withdraw the plea was ever filed, nor was an appeal entered from the judgment.

On March 19, 1965, Lewis instituted an action of habeas corpus, which the lower court dismissed after hearing. An appeal from this order is presently before us.

The sole question now raised by Lewis is that a confession given to investigating police following his arrest was erroneously admitted (without objection) against him during the hearing incident to the court’s passing sentence. It is asserted that at the time of making the confession, he was without the assistance of counsel and was not warned of his constitutional right thereto, or his right to remain silent, citing Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).

Assuming arguendo, that Escobedo renders a confession given under the circumstances appellant asserts is void for all purposes and as a result may not be used against the maker, even by the court in determining the sentence to be imposed, the question may not be raised at this late date. See, Commonwealth v. Negri, 419 Pa. 117, 213 A. 2d 670 (1965).

Moreover, contrary to Lewis’ present assertions, the record establishes conclusively that before giving the confession involved, he was clearly warned of his right to remain silent, and of his right not to answer any questions unless his, lawyer was present. Under such circumstances,, the confession was constitutionally valid and properly admissible in any proceeding in furtherance of the prosecution.

[41]*41Order affirmed.

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

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Eagen,

The appellant, William Lewis, on December 6, 1963, While represented by counsel, plead guilty to an indictment charging him with the crime of voluntary man[40]*40slaughter. . On January 29, 1964, he appeared in court with his counsel for the purpose of being sentenced. The court proceeded to hear testimony on the part of the Commonwealth and on behalf of the defendant, after, which the court sentenced Lewis to serve an indeterminate term in a state correctional institution, for a term of six to twelve years. No motion to withdraw the plea was ever filed, nor was an appeal entered from the judgment.

On March 19, 1965, Lewis instituted an action of habeas corpus, which the lower court dismissed after hearing. An appeal from this order is presently before us.

The sole question now raised by Lewis is that a confession given to investigating police following his arrest was erroneously admitted (without objection) against him during the hearing incident to the court’s passing sentence. It is asserted that at the time of making the confession, he was without the assistance of counsel and was not warned of his constitutional right thereto, or his right to remain silent, citing Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).

Assuming arguendo, that Escobedo renders a confession given under the circumstances appellant asserts is void for all purposes and as a result may not be used against the maker, even by the court in determining the sentence to be imposed, the question may not be raised at this late date. See, Commonwealth v. Negri, 419 Pa. 117, 213 A. 2d 670 (1965).

Moreover, contrary to Lewis’ present assertions, the record establishes conclusively that before giving the confession involved, he was clearly warned of his right to remain silent, and of his right not to answer any questions unless his, lawyer was present. Under such circumstances,, the confession was constitutionally valid and properly admissible in any proceeding in furtherance of the prosecution.

[41]*41Order affirmed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.2d 629, 420 Pa. 39, 1966 Pa. LEXIS 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-lewis-v-maroney-pa-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack