Opinion
June 8, 1970.
September 18, 1970.
Criminal Law — Practice — Plea of guilty — Alleged misrepresentations — Absence of evidentiary hearing — Remand of case for hearing — Treating proceeding as if it were a PCHA hearing.
1. Defendant alleged that his guilty plea was induced by certain misrepresentations made to him by his court-appointed attorney and the district attorney. No evidentiary hearing was held on this issue.
On appeal by defendant from judgment of sentence it was Held that, on the state of the record, the Superior Court could not make any decision at this time. The case was remanded for a hearing on the question of whether defendant's plea was voluntarily entered.
2. It was Held that the court below should treat the proceeding as if it were a Post Conviction Hearing Act hearing.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.
Appeal, No. 1202, Oct. T., 1969, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, Dec. T., 1968, No. 198, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Paul Lyle Spitler. Case remanded for a hearing.
Indictment charging defendant with issuing a worthless check and fraudulent conversion. Before ESHELMAN, J.
Plea of guilty of issuing a worthless check entered and judgment of sentence thereon. Defendant appealed.
Ralph W.D. Levan, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Grant E. Wesner, Assistant District Attorney, with him Robert L. Van Hoove, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, J., dissented.
Submitted June 8, 1970.
Appellant alleges that his guilty plea was induced by certain misrepresentations made to appellant by his court-appointed attorney and the District Attorney. Although this claim presents a question of fact, no evidentiary hearing has been held on this issue. On the state of the record, we cannot make any decision at this time. Cf. Commonwealth v. Jones, 438 Pa. 86, 263 A.2d 360 (1970) (ROBERTS, J.).
We remand this case for a hearing on the question of whether appellant's plea was voluntarily entered. The court below should treat this proceeding as if it were a Post Conviction Hearing Act hearing. Cf. Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P. S. § 1180-9.
WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, J., dissent.