represented the petitioner throughout. (N.T. 2, ff.)
7. Louis F. McCabe, Esq. was deceased at the time of the hearing before this Court, and counsel for petitioner had been unable to contact Mr. Stengel. (N. Hear. 4)
8. There is no evidence that counsel was not present at the time petitioner pleaded guilty generally to the charge of murder. (N. Hear. 4)
9. The Court finds as a fact that petitioner was represented by counsel at the time of the guilty plea. (N. Hear. 6)
10. A confession, in the form of a statement made by petitioner in the presence of several police officers, was introduced into evidence at the 1946 trial (Finding No. 3, supra). (N.T. 37-41; N. Hear. 9-13)
11. Petitioner was not represented by counsel at the time he made that confession. (ibid.)
12. The confession was not coerced, involuntary, or otherwise illegally obtained or tainted by unfairness. (ibid.)
Petitioner made two contentions:
(1) That he was not represented by counsel at the time he made his plea of guilty.
(2) That his confession was improperly admitted into evidence and considered by the Court of Oyer and Terminer, General Jail Delivery and Quarter Sessions before whom he was tried.
The first contention was disallowed at the hearing. (Finding of Fact No. 9, supra)
The second contention as to involuntariness has been disallowed herein. (Finding No. 12, supra) As to nonrepresentation at the time of confession, see Conclusions of Law Nos. 4, 5 and 6 below.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Petitioner had exhausted state remedies. Order November 23, 1965; Commonwealth ex rel. Blackshear v. Myers, 419 Pa. 151, 213 A.2d 378 (1965).
2. Petitioner was duly represented by counsel at the hearing before this Court on January 7, 1966.
3. Matters of fact and law have been duly presented in briefs and oral argument; all points and authorities presented by the respective parties have been duly considered.
4. On June 20, 1966, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled as follows:
"In this case we are called upon to determine whether Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S. Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed. 2d 977 (1964) * * * should be applied retroactively. We hold that Escobedo affects only those cases in which the trial began after June 22, 1964, the date of that decision. * * *" Johnson and Cassidy v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S. Ct. 1772, 16 L. Ed. 2d 882 (1966).