Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, March T., 1965, No. 341, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Vernon L. Newsome v. David N. Myers, Superintendent.
William H. Saye, for appellant.
Henry W. Rhoads, Assistant District Attorney, with him LeRoy S. Zimmerman, District Attorney, for appellee.
Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell. Mr. Justice Cohen took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In Commonwealth ex rel. Newsome v. Myers, 422 Pa. 240, 220 A.2d 886, this Court directed the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine (a) whether petitioner Vernon Newsome had been deprived of his right to the assistance of counsel on direct appeal, as required by Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 83 S. Ct. 814, or (b) whether his failure to appeal resulted from an intelligent and knowing waiver of that right. See Commonwealth ex rel. Stevens v. Myers, 424 Pa. 377, 227 A.2d 649.
Newsome had pleaded not guilty to a charge of murder; on June 5, 1963, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. On June 11, 1963, Newsome was sentenced to not less than ten nor more than twenty years. He was represented at his trial and at his sentencing by two Court-appointed counsel.
Petitioner's amended habeas corpus petition -- which was filed on May 19, 1965, almost two years after the judgment of sentence had been entered -- raised for the first time the allegation that petitioner had requested trial counsel to prosecute an appeal and that counsel
had refused to take an appeal, stating that they were not permitted to do so. Petitioner further alleged that he was without knowledge of appellate procedure and thus was denied his right to such an appeal.
Pursuant to our mandate, a hearing sur said petition was held in the Court below. Petitioner's trial counsel testified that they had made thirteen visits to the prison to confer with the petitioner and four of these visits were made after sentence was imposed on him. They testified that they had advised petitioner (1) of his right to file a motion for a new trial, which they had already prepared, and (2) also of his right to appeal from the judgment of sentence, and (3) that they believed there was no legal or meritorious ground on which to successfully base a motion for and obtain a new trial, and that petitioner had concurred in their advice not to take any further action. As a consequence, the motion for a new trial was never filed.
As to the right of petitioner to appeal the judgment of sentence, one of petitioner's trial counsel testified at the evidentiary hearing as follows: ". . . I told Mr. Newsome that there is a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania within 45 days from verdict. I said that we hadn't filed motions for a new trial and that the four days had expired, but that in my opinion if an appeal was filed within 45 days the Supreme Court might well waive that four day requirement, that I didn't think they would hold Mr. Newsome to that requirement if he would file an appeal within 45 days. I said an appeal is a simple paper to file with the Supreme Court.
". . . Mr. Newsome was undecided as to what to do; in fact, he indicated to us that he didn't desire us to do anything further, that he would have to think about it. He realized that he had a considerable amount of time to think about it, 45 days from ...