Opinion
November 13, 1967.
December 15, 1967.
Criminal Law — Counsel for defendant — Alleged ineffectiveness — Shortness of time to confer with counsel — Finding of hearing judge — Burden of proof — Voluntariness and understanding of plea of guilty — Statement of petitioner at hearing.
1. In a proceeding upon a petition for a post-conviction hearing, in which it appeared that petitioner alleged ineffectiveness of counsel at trial; and that the court below, after hearing, found that petitioner's trial attorney was able to become sufficiently familiar with the case so as to provide petitioner with the best representation possible; it was Held that the finding of the court below was supported by the record, and that petitioner had not carried his burden of proof to demonstrate any violation of a constitutional right.
2. Shortness of time to confer with counsel does not constitute ineffective counsel.
3. Where it appeared that petitioner further alleged that his plea of guilty was not entered intelligently and voluntarily; and that the hearing judge was satisfied that petitioner had entered a plea of guilty knowing of the consequences thereof; it was Held that, since the burden of proof was on petitioner, the hearing judge was justified in accepting petitioner's statement at the hearing to the effect that he had knowingly and intelligently entered his plea.
4. There is no fixed procedure whereby voluntariness and understanding of a plea of guilty are to be determined.
Before ERVIN, P.J., WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, and SPAULDING, JJ.
Appeal, No. 220, April T., 1967, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1965, No. 1472, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Wilbert Kastle v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent. Order affirmed.
Petition for post-conviction hearing. Before ELLENBOGEN, P.J.
Order entered dismissing petition. Petitioner appealed.
Carl E. Glock, Jr., for appellant.
Charles B. Watkins and Edwin J. Martin, Assistant District Attorneys, and Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted November 13, 1967.
Appellant filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, 19 P. S. § 1180-1 et seq. (Supp. 1966), alleging ineffectiveness of counsel at trial and that his plea of guilty was not entered intelligently and voluntarily. A hearing was held in the lower court.
The lower court found that "Mr. O'Donnell [defendant's trial attorney] was able to become sufficiently familiar with the case so as to provide relator with the best representation possible." From a close reading of the record, we readily concur in this finding. It should be noted that shortness of time to confer with counsel does not constitute ineffective counsel. See Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A.2d 349 (1967). Appellant has presented no other grounds which may have prejudiced him in any way, and has, therefore, not carried his burden of proof in demonstrating any violations of a constitutional right. Commonwealth ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, supra.
We also find no merit in appellant's contention that his guilty plea was not voluntarily or intelligently entered. ". . . Our cases have not prescribed a fixed procedure whereby voluntariness and understanding are to be determined, . . ." Commonwealth ex rel. West v. Myers, 423 Pa. 1, 7, 222 A.2d 918, 922 (1966); see Commonwealth v. Hill, 427 Pa. 614, 235 A.2d 347 (1967). The hearing judge was satisfied that appellant had entered a plea of guilty knowing of the consequences thereof. Since the burden of proof is on appellant, we hold that the hearing judge was justified in accepting appellant's statement at the hearing to the effect that he knowingly and intelligently entered his plea. Commonwealth v. Hill, supra.
We therefore affirm the lower court's dismissal of appellant's petition.
Order affirmed.