No. 1214 OCTOBER TERM 1976, Appeal from the Opinion and Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Denying the Petition Under the Post Conviction Hearing Act on Bill of Indictment 372 Criminal, 1975 and Bill of Indictment 537 Criminal, 1975.
Ronald E. Johnson, Carlisle, for appellant.
Edgar B. Bayley, Jr., Camp Hill, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Hoffman and Price, JJ., concur in the result.
[ 251 Pa. Super. Page 38]
This appeal is from an order denying relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act.*fn1
[ 251 Pa. Super. Page 39]
On Indictment No. 372 of 1975 appellant was found guilty by a jury of passing a bad check.*fn2 On Indictment No. 537 of 1975 he pleaded guilty to escape.*fn3 On June 10, 1975, he was sentenced on each indictment, the sentences to be consecutive.
A direct appeal was filed by appellant's trial counsel, who was a member of the Public Defender's Office. Since appellant wished to question the effectiveness of trial counsel, new counsel, not associated with the Defender's Office, was appointed. In October of 1975, before disposition of the appeal, appellant filed a pro se petition requesting relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. When it was discovered that the same issues were raised in the petition as on the appeal, the appeal was withdrawn in favor of a proceeding on the petition.
On November 18, 1975, a hearing was held on the PCHA petition before President Judge SHUGHART, who was the judge who had sentenced appellant. The petition was denied, and this appeal was filed. Before it was filed, appellant's counsel was appointed to the Public Defender's Office. Accordingly, appellant's present counsel was appointed to prosecute the appeal.
No. 372 of 1975 (Bad Check)
Appellant's several complaints regarding his conviction for passing a bad check have not been properly preserved for our review; they are therefore deemed waived. Commonwealth v. Blair, 460 Pa. 31, 331 A.2d 213 (1975).
Appellant does not dispute the fact, as shown in the record, that after he was found guilty by the jury, the judge had him brought back into the courtroom and instructed him on his appellate rights. He was told of his right to file post-trial motions within seven days, of his ...