Commonwealth v. Ramos

364 A.2d 257, 468 Pa. 404, 1976 Pa. LEXIS 695

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 8, 1976
• Docket: 236
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Arturo Ramos, pled guilty to having shot one Andre Rosario and was thereafter found guilty of murder in the second degree, the Commonwealth having stipulated that the charge of murder should rise no higher. A sentence of seven to fourteen years was imposed.

The instant appeal is from the denial of appellant’s postconviction petition alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his plea, was involuntary due to the fact that he did not understand the nature of the. charges against him.¹

The colloquy reflects, as alleged by appellant, that neither the charges against him nor the elements comprising the crime of murder in the second degree were ever explained to him on the record. This fatal omission requires a reversal of the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Criminal Division, and the grant of a new trial in light of our decisions in Commonwealth v. Schork, 467 Pa. 248, 356 A.2d 355 (1976); Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230, 356 A.2d 346 (1976) and Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1973). See also, Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976).²

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Mr. Chief Justice JONES and Mr. Justice POMEROY dissent to the retroactive application of Commonwealth v. Ingram, 455 Pa. 198, 316 A.2d 77 (1973). See, Commonwealth v. Minor, 467 Pa. 230, 239-240, 356 A.2d 346, 351 (Pomeroy, J., dissenting).

ROBERTS, J., filed a concurring opinion in which O’BRIEN and MANDERINO, JJ., joined. EAGEN, J., dissents.

1 . Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to Section 11 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965), 1580, i 11, 19 P.S. § 1180-11, and Section 202 of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act, Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, No. 223, Art. II, § 202,17 P.S. § 201.202.

2 . Although unartfully drawn, appellant’s pro se claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel made in his original post-conviction petition is borne out by the record and the Ingram issue is therefor not waived under Section 1180-4 of the Post Conviction Hearing Act, supra.