Commonwealth v. Fink

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Fink

232 A.2d 230, 210 Pa. Super. 71, 1967 Pa. Super. LEXIS 961

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 16, 1967

DocketAppeal, No. 79

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 232 A.2d 230 (Commonwealth v. Fink) 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 v. Fink, 232 A.2d 230, 210 Pa. Super. 71, 1967 Pa. Super. LEXIS 961 (Pa. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

This is an appeal from the dismissal, without hearing, of a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §1180-1 et seq.

On March 21, 1966, appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of corrupting the morals of a minor. He now alleges that: “When the case was called for trial, petitioner was induced by Court-appointed counsel to enter a ‘compromise plea’ with the understanding that a sentence not exceeding nine (9) months would be imposed.” He further alleges that a sentence of nine months was imposed, but that minutes later, the sentence was changed to one of eighteen months to three years.

The record does not show that any lighter sentence was originally imposed. The Court changed only the place of appellant’s imprisonment, from the Eastern State Penitentiary to the Lancaster County Jail.

Appellant does not allege that his plea was involuntarily entered, as in Commonwealth ex rel. West v. Myers, 423 Pa. 1, 222 A. 2d 918 (1966). Nor do his allegations establish that the guilty plea should have been withdrawn. See Commonwealth v. Scoleri, 415 Pa. 218, 202 A. 2d 521 (1964). Finally, his allegation of an “understanding” that a sentence of only nine [73]*73months would be imposed, is indefinite and insufficient to show that the plea was involuntary.

We conclude that the petition was properly dismissed.

Order affirmed.

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 dismissal, without hearing, of a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §1180-1 et seq.

On March 21, 1966, appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of corrupting the morals of a minor. He now alleges that: “When the case was called for trial, petitioner was induced by Court-appointed counsel to enter a ‘compromise plea’ with the understanding that a sentence not exceeding nine (9) months would be imposed.” He further alleges that a sentence of nine months was imposed, but that minutes later, the sentence was changed to one of eighteen months to three years.

The record does not show that any lighter sentence was originally imposed. The Court changed only the place of appellant’s imprisonment, from the Eastern State Penitentiary to the Lancaster County Jail.

Appellant does not allege that his plea was involuntarily entered, as in Commonwealth ex rel. West v. Myers, 423 Pa. 1, 222 A. 2d 918 (1966). Nor do his allegations establish that the guilty plea should have been withdrawn. See Commonwealth v. Scoleri, 415 Pa. 218, 202 A. 2d 521 (1964). Finally, his allegation of an “understanding” that a sentence of only nine [73]*73months would be imposed, is indefinite and insufficient to show that the plea was involuntary.

We conclude that the petition was properly dismissed.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.2d 230, 210 Pa. Super. 71, 1967 Pa. Super. LEXIS 961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-fink-pasuperct-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack