Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Nov. T., 1968, No. 454, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Samuel Porchin, a/k/a Samuel Porcher.
James J. Phelan, Jr., for appellant.
Joseph C. Murray and Milton M. Stein, Assistant District Attorneys, Richard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and Arlen Specter, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packel, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J. Spaulding, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.
[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 200]
Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:
This case presents the question of whether or not the appellant is entitled to a new trial as a result of a conflict of interest which existed at trial by virtue of the fact that appellant and his co-defendant were both represented by the same attorney.
Appellant Samuel Porchin and his co-defendant Albert Walker were charged with aggravated robbery and were brought to trial on December 19, 1968. During the trial the victim of the crime Harry Sara testified that he entered a bar carrying eight boxes of sweaters on October 5, 1968. Prior to his entering the taproom, Sara observed the appellant and Albert Walker standing in the doorway of the bar. After his entry into the bar, the victim was struck from behind by someone who took his sweaters, watch, and wallet. Porchin testified in his own behalf at trial and denied that he had taken part in the incident. Walker admitted that he grabbed the sweaters, but denied striking the victim. Walker further testified that Porchin was not with him when the robbery occurred. Both defendants were found guilty of the crime charged.
Walker filed a petition pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act alleging that a conflict of interest existed at trial because both he and Porchin were represented by the same counsel. Walker's allegation was substantiated and he was granted a new trial. Appellant now contends ...