Commonwealth v. Santiago

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Santiago

361 A.2d 732, 240 Pa. Super. 63, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1961

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 22, 1976

DocketAppeal, 1505

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 361 A.2d 732 (Commonwealth v. Santiago) 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. Santiago, 361 A.2d 732, 240 Pa. Super. 63, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1961 (Pa. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Cercone, J„

This is an appeal from appellant’s guilty plea to the charge of robbery. 1 Appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the entering of his plea because he was not informed by counsel that intoxication could have negated an element of the offense. See Section 308 of the Crimes Code. 2 Although it does not appear on the record, appellant contends that his counsel was aware that appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense. The Commonwealth, rather than address the merits of appellant’s claim, argues, citing Commonwealth v. Starr, 450 Pa. 485, 487-488 (1973), that the trial court, not this court, is the proper forum to determine, in the first instance, whether appellant should be permitted to withdraw his plea. We agree. As was stated in Commonwealth v. Roberts, 237 Pa. Superior Ct. 336, 338-339 (1975): “The same principles which mandate that issues not raised in post-verdict motions will not be considered on direct appeal mandate that an attack on a guilty plea on direct appeal must be preceded by the filing of a petition to withdraw such plea with the court below.” In the instant case this procedure is particularly well suited in that appellant’s claim cannot be resolved without determining first whether counsel was aware of appellant’s intoxication and second whether counsel’s actions in light of knowledge of the intoxication had any reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interest. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 604 (1967). To answer these *65 questions appellant’s counsel must be heard. This can be done by the trial court as part of its consideration of appellant’s petition to withdraw his guilty plea.

Remanded with a procedendo.

Price, J., dissents.

1

. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §3701.

2

. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §308.

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

Opinion by

Cercone, J„

This is an appeal from appellant’s guilty plea to the charge of robbery. 1 Appellant contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in the entering of his plea because he was not informed by counsel that intoxication could have negated an element of the offense. See Section 308 of the Crimes Code. 2 Although it does not appear on the record, appellant contends that his counsel was aware that appellant was intoxicated at the time of the offense. The Commonwealth, rather than address the merits of appellant’s claim, argues, citing Commonwealth v. Starr, 450 Pa. 485, 487-488 (1973), that the trial court, not this court, is the proper forum to determine, in the first instance, whether appellant should be permitted to withdraw his plea. We agree. As was stated in Commonwealth v. Roberts, 237 Pa. Superior Ct. 336, 338-339 (1975): “The same principles which mandate that issues not raised in post-verdict motions will not be considered on direct appeal mandate that an attack on a guilty plea on direct appeal must be preceded by the filing of a petition to withdraw such plea with the court below.” In the instant case this procedure is particularly well suited in that appellant’s claim cannot be resolved without determining first whether counsel was aware of appellant’s intoxication and second whether counsel’s actions in light of knowledge of the intoxication had any reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interest. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 604 (1967). To answer these *65 questions appellant’s counsel must be heard. This can be done by the trial court as part of its consideration of appellant’s petition to withdraw his guilty plea.

Remanded with a procedendo.

Price, J., dissents.

1

. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §3701.

2

. Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, §1, 18 Pa. C.S. §308.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 A.2d 732, 240 Pa. Super. 63, 1976 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1961, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-santiago-pasuperct-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack