The opinion of the court was delivered by: HUYETT
FINDINGS OF FACT, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER
Following a de novo review of the report of the magistrate, including those portions objected to, and a de novo review of the evidence and the entire record pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b) (Supp.1979) and the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 note (Supp.1979), I approve and adopt the findings of fact recommended by the magistrate with the exceptions noted below and make the following additional findings.
1. Recommended finding 8 is modified to read as follows: On September 21, 1976, Mr. Kardos appeared before the Honorable John Bodley.
a. At that time Mr. Kardos requested a continuance of the trial date.
b. The request for an extended continuance was denied, however, a one-day continuance was granted so that it could be determined whether the petitioner was in good enough health to stand trial.
c. Mr. Kardos first met with petitioner on September 21, 1976.
2. Recommended finding 10 a. ii is modified to read as follows: One of these motions was a Motion to Suppress Evidence.
3. The Bucks County public defenders office had from May 13, 1976 to September 21, 1976 in which to prepare petitioner's defense. H. 5, 20-22.
4. A member of that office interviewed the petitioner in July of 1976. H. 40.
5. A lawyer from the defenders office, John Witman, represented the petitioner at his arraignment on September 12, 1976. H. 41.
6. At his trial, the petitioner took the stand in his own defense and admitted all the facts which led to his arrest. H. 32-33, 56, 69, 70-71.
7. The petitioner did not ask counsel to call any witnesses on his behalf. H. 22-23, 52.
8. The September 1, 1976 request for a bill of particulars also included a discovery request. H. 16.
9. Mr. Kardos did have an opportunity to interview some witnesses called by ...