Commonwealth v. Miles

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Miles

446 A.2d 892, 498 Pa. 372, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 537

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 25, 1982

DocketNo. 80-3-472

StatusPublished

This text of 446 A.2d 892 (Commonwealth v. Miles) 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 v. Miles, 446 A.2d 892, 498 Pa. 372, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 537 (Pa. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial, after a counselled evidentiary hearing, of the petition of appellant James Miles for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to object to allegedly prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor; (2) for failing to challenge appellant’s pretrial statements on the ground of unnecessary delay, see Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972); (3) for making remarks to the jury allegedly indicative of counsel’s “siding” more with the Commonwealth than with appellant, and (4) for conceding the credibility of the police officer who had taken appellant’s pretrial statements. Our review of the record convinces us that appellant has failed to demonstrate that counsel’s strategy lacked a reasonable basis designed to effectuate appellant’s interests. Thus appellant is not entitled to relief. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967).

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a denial, after a counselled evidentiary hearing, of the petition of appellant James Miles for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. Appellant contends that trial counsel was ineffective (1) for failing to object to allegedly prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor; (2) for failing to challenge appellant’s pretrial statements on the ground of unnecessary delay, see Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389, 290 A.2d 417 (1972); (3) for making remarks to the jury allegedly indicative of counsel’s “siding” more with the Commonwealth than with appellant, and (4) for conceding the credibility of the police officer who had taken appellant’s pretrial statements. Our review of the record convinces us that appellant has failed to demonstrate that counsel’s strategy lacked a reasonable basis designed to effectuate appellant’s interests. Thus appellant is not entitled to relief. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967).

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 A.2d 892, 498 Pa. 372, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-miles-pa-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack