The opinion of the court was delivered by: LUONGO
Relator, Walter E. McGinty, is presently serving a 2 1/2 to 5 year sentence for burglary imposed by the state court following a guilty plea. He was represented by counsel prior to and at the time of the entry of the guilty plea on June 29, 1967 and at the time of sentencing on July 10, 1967.
In this petition for writ of habeas corpus McGinty charges that his guilty plea was entered in violation of his constitutional rights in that
1. he was not advised of his right to have counsel during interrogation by the police;
2. a confession was improperly obtained from him;
3. his guilty plea was unlawfully induced;
4. the state court did not determine, before accepting the guilty plea, that it was given voluntarily and intelligently;
All the issues sought to be raised here were raised in Post Conviction proceedings filed in the state court. After an evidentiary hearing, the petition was denied. The ruling was affirmed on appeal.
Relator has, therefore, exhausted state remedies.
Since a full and fair hearing has been afforded in the state court, the within charges may be disposed of without evidentiary hearing in this court. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S. Ct. 745, 9 L. Ed. 2d 770 (1963).
The state court records reveal that relator and his brother, Francis, were arrested on the premises of a plumbing supply company at 3:24 a.m. on April 25, 1967 by a Lt. Ward, a sergeant and two patrolmen of the Springfield Township police. Relator's automobile, containing $745 worth of materials belonging to the plumbing supply company, was found on the company's parking lot. The brothers were taken to the Springfield Township police station where they were questioned. While at the police station relator was informed that finger prints matching his were found at the site of a burglary at a plumbing supply company in Newtown Township. Both relator and his brother then gave statements admitting the burglary in Springfield Township and two others in Newtown Township.
Relator's charges will be considered seriatim:
1. Failure of police to advise of constitutional rights before interrogation.
At the Post Conviction hearing relator testified that he requested and was denied permission to telephone counsel. That testimony was contradicted by Lt. Ward who testified that he advised relator of his constitutional rights before questioning him, and that he permitted relator to make a telephone call. Lt. Ward's testimony was corroborated in part by relator's trial counsel who testified that relator had told him that the police had advised him of his constitutional rights. There was thus ample evidence to support the state Post Conviction ...