No. 1828 October Term, 1979, Appeal from the Order of Court dated August 6, 1979 of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Delaware County, Pennsylvania at Nos. 5768, 5769, and 7201 of 1977
Brian S. Quinn, Havertown, for appellant.
Frank T. Hazel, District Attorney, Media, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Brosky, Johnson and Popovich, JJ. Johnson, J., concurs in the result of this opinion.
[ 292 Pa. Super. Page 195]
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, denying relief on a counseled Post Conviction Hearing Act*fn1 (PCHA) petition filed by appellant, Robert Harper.
On April 14, 1978, after trial before a jury, appellant was convicted of several counts of forgery, attempted forgery, and receiving stolen property. At trial, appellant was represented by a member of the public defender's office (first counsel). No post-verdict motions were filed,*fn2 and, following a hearing on appellant's petition to file post-verdict motions nunc pro tunc, the petition was denied. New, private counsel (second counsel), aided appellant both in the preparation of the petition and at the hearing. At sentencing, appellant, again represented by another private attorney (third counsel/post-trial counsel), was sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment of six to twelve years. No direct appeal was taken.
[ 292 Pa. Super. Page 196]
On February 8, 1979, appellant filed a pro se PCHA petition. An amended petition was filed by new, private counsel (fourth counsel) on May 24, 1979.*fn3 A hearing was held and the petition was denied on August 6, 1979. This appeal followed. On appeal, appellant is represented by fifth counsel, who is a private attorney.
Instantly, appellant argues that: (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of evidence that had been ordered suppressed; and for abandoning him at the post-verdict motions stage; (2) the lower court erred in denying appellant's petition to file post-verdict motions nunc pro tunc thereby denying his right to appeal; and (3) appellant was denied the right to be provided with free transcripts.
For the following reasons, we affirm the order of the lower court.
It is well settled that a criminal defendant who deliberately and knowingly chooses to bypass orderly state procedures afforded for challenging his conviction is bound by the consequences of that decision. Commonwealth v. Myers, 427 Pa. 104, 233 A.2d 220 (1967); Commonwealth v. Mika, 277 Pa. Super. 339, 419 A.2d ...