Appeal from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, March T., 1954, Nos. 349 and 351, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Nathaniel Dupree.
Charles W. Bowser, for appellant.
Fortunata Giudice and James D. Crawford, Assistant District Attorneys, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, and Cercone, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J. Montgomery and Spaulding, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.
[ 214 Pa. Super. Page 517]
Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:
This is an attack on a guilty plea on the grounds that it was unlawfully induced.
Appellant testified at a hearing pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. 1180-1 et seq., that he was arrested by police and questioned concerning two robberies. He confessed to one robbery but maintained his innocence with respect to the other. The police then told him that if he did not confess to both robberies his wife, the mother of his three young children, would be arrested and prosecuted as an accomplice in connection with the second robbery.
Subsequently, defense counsel also told appellant that his wife might be involved and advised him that since he was going to jail for the first robbery anyway, he might as well protect his wife from involvement and plead guilty to the second robbery.
Appellant's trial lawyer confirmed this testimony. "A. I also was informed that the money had been put upon a table in his home, in (appellant's) home, and divided in the presence of his wife. I advised him that there was a possibility of his wife being implicated on a criminal charge and, to save him the mental anguish of his wife also being implicated, it was best that he enter a plea of guilty and receive as lenient a sentence as possible from the court. . . . Q. You did discuss with (appellant) the fact that his wife might be involved? A. Yes, I definitely remember that because the co-defendant . . ., if I remember correctly, ...