No. 378 Pittsburgh, 1980, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County at Nos. 7701060, 7701061 and 7701062.
John H. Corbett, Jr., Public Defender, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Robert L. Eberhardt, Deputy District Attorney, Pittsburgh, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Hester, Popovich and DiSalle, JJ. Decision was rendered prior to DiSalle, J., leaving the bench of the Superior Court.
[ 294 Pa. Super. Page 187]
Appellant, Daniel Hadovanic, was found guilty by a jury of numerous counts of rape, statutory rape, corruption of a minor, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, incest, indecent assault and criminal solicitation. After post-trial motions were denied and sentence imposed, appellant appealed to this Court, which affirmed the judgment of sentence in a Memorandum Opinion filed May 31, 1979, at No. 603 April Term, 1978, 268 Pa. Super. 630, 413 A.2d 1136. Thereafter, appellant, represented by counsel other than trial counsel, filed a Post-Conviction Hearing Act*fn1 (PCHA) petition alleging that (private) trial counsel was ineffective for neglecting to inform him of the result of his direct appeal and for failing to assert a violation by the Commonwealth of his right to a trial within 180 days as embodied in Pa.R.Crim.P.
[ 294 Pa. Super. Page 1881100]
. After the conducting of a hearing on appellant's claims, the Hon. John W. O'Brien granted appellant the right to appeal nunc pro tunc to our Supreme Court for review of this Court's affirmance of the judgment of sentence,*fn2 but denied the latter relief requested.
On appeal, appellant claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of "the ramifications of signing a waiver of Rule 1100"; and "had counsel informed him of the consequences of signing the waiver . . ., he would not have done so." (Appellant's Brief at 7) Moreover, appellant contends that a Rule 1100 violation existed and his counsel, therefore, was ineffective for not raising it. Id. at 9.
As to the first prong of appellant's contention, the record evidences an exchange involving the appellant, his counsel and the trial judge which belies such averment; to-wit:
Q You understand that your trial was set for September -- ...