Appeal from judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of Bucks County, Nov. T., 1958, No. 73, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Paul Stanley.
Rodney D. Henry, Public Defender, for appellant.
Charles J. Conturso, Assistant District Attorney, with him Ward F. Clark, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Hannum, JJ. Opinion by Hoffman, J. Wright, P. J., and Watkins, J., would affirm on the opinion of President Judge Satterthwaite.
[ 214 Pa. Super. Page 119]
In 1961, appellant, who was not represented by counsel, was tried before a jury on two indictments charging him with larceny and receiving stolen goods relating to a theft of an automobile, and with larceny and receiving stolen goods relating to the theft of the contents of the vehicle.
The trial court, on its own motion, sustained a demurrer to both counts of the indictment relating to the contents of the automobile. The jury found appellant not guilty of the larceny of the automobile, but guilty of receiving stolen goods. No post-trial motions were filed and appellant was sentenced.
In 1965, appellant, without counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was denied his right to counsel at trial. This position was rejected by the lower court, without a hearing.
In 1966, appellant, again without counsel, filed another petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was denied his right to counsel on appeal. The lower court, without a hearing, rejected this contention. Appeal was taken to this court. We held, in Commonwealth ex rel. Stanley v. Myers, 209 Pa. Superior Ct. 396, 228 A.2d 215 (1967) that in the face
[ 214 Pa. Super. Page 120]
of a silent record it could not be presumed that appellant has waived his right to counsel on appeal. The case was remanded to the lower court for an evidentiary hearing to determine if appellant did in fact waive such right. On remand, the lower court, after a hearing, concluded that appellant was denied his right to counsel on appeal. This appeal followed.
The issue before us on appeal is whether appellant was denied counsel at trial.
On the day of trial, appellant appeared before Judge Biester and the following colloquy ensued: "The Court: Mr. Stanley, if you desire to have counsel we have the Public Defender here in Bucks County, and Mr. Hart Rufe has agreed to represent you if you want to proceed with the trial. Appellant: Well, I would rather represent myself your Honor. The ...