Com. ex rel. Fordham v. Rundle

Full title: Commonwealth ex rel. Fordham, Appellant v. Rundle

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 17, 1964

198 A.2d 418 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1964)

198 A.2d 418

Opinion

December 10, 1963.

March 17, 1964.

Criminal Law — Counsel for defendant — Due process — Intelligent waiver of right to counsel.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that before petitioner pleaded guilty the sentencing judge advised him of his constitutional rights and offered to provide counsel, but that petitioner did not desire counsel and freely related his participation in the several felonies, it was Held that petitioner was not denied due process because he was not represented by counsel at the time he entered his pleas of guilty.

Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.

Appeal, No. 338, Oct. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Miscellaneous No. 12118, 1963, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. John Fordham v. Alfred T. Rundle, Superintendent. Order affirmed.

Habeas corpus.

Order entered refusing petition, opinion by GAWTHROP, P.J. Relator appealed.

John Fordham, appellant, in propria persona. Alfred Delduco, Assistant District Attorney, and Samuel J. Halpren, District Attorney, for appellee.

Submitted December 10, 1963.

OPINION BY WRIGHT, J., March 17, 1964:

John Fordham has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

We have carefully reviewed the original record. It reveals that, on March 18, 1960, Fordham pleaded guilty to bills of indictment charging burglary and larceny. Sentences were imposed and Fordham is presently confined in the State Correctional Institution at Philadelphia.

The sole question raised by appellant is that he was denied due process because he was not represented by counsel at the time he entered his pleas of guilty. It appears from the transcript of the proceedings that the sentencing judge advised appellant of his constitutional rights and offered to provide counsel. Appellant stated that he did not desire counsel and freely related his participation in the several felonies. We are of the opinion that the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799, relied upon by appellant, is not controlling in this situation. Appellant understood the nature of the charges against him and intelligently waived his right to counsel. There was no ingredient of unfairness or deprivation of due process.

OPINION BY WRIGHT, J., March 17, 1964:

Order affirmed.