No. 218 Special Transfer Docket, Appeal from Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Philadelphia, at No. 870 November Term, 1969
Norris E. Gelman, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Watkins, O'Brien and Cirillo, JJ.*fn*
[ 279 Pa. Super. Page 220]
This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Criminal Division, denying appellant's Post Conviction Hearing Act*fn1 [PCHA] petition.
Appellant, Calvin Davis, pleaded guilty to murder generally on November 2, 1970, and was thereafter adjudged guilty of murder of the second degree. He was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of not less than ten nor more than twenty years. No direct appeal was taken. On January 18, 1971, appellant filed a pro se motion in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania requesting leave to take a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence imposed on December 30, 1970. Following the appointment of counsel, the Supreme Court remanded the record to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the issue raised in the appeal-whether or not a plea bargain had been struck.
Hearings, which were styled hearings under the PCHA, were held on May 22, 1972, and June 27, 1972. The hearing judge denied relief and filed an opinion which found as a fact that appellant entered his guilty plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and that no plea bargain had been struck. This denial of relief was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Commonwealth v. Davis, 452 Pa. 369, 306 A.2d 897 (1973).
On March 7, 1977, appellant filed a PCHA petition, once again challenging the validity of the 1970 plea and alleging ineffective representation by his prior counsel at the first PCHA hearing. Following a hearing, the court denied relief and filed an opinion in support thereof. This appeal followed.
[ 279 Pa. Super. Page 221]
Specifically, appellant presently contends that the inadequacy of his guilty plea colloquy has rendered his guilty plea invalid. He also claims he was not afforded effective representation at his first PCHA proceeding because prior counsel failed to raise the adequacy of the colloquy.
The hearing judge found as a fact that appellant was competently and adequately represented during all of his prior proceedings. Such findings of fact are to be given great deference and will not be disturbed if supported in the PCHA record. Commonwealth v. Lee, 478 Pa. 70, 385 A.2d 1317 (1978).
The well-established standard for determining whether counsel was ineffective is set forth in Com. ex rel. Washington v. Maroney, 427 Pa. ...