No. 1545 Philadelphia, 1981, APPEAL FROM THE PCHA ORDER OF MAY 22, 1981 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DELAWARE COUNTY, CRIMINAL, No. 3356 of 1977.
Joseph B. Vanwyk, Media, for appellant.
Vram Nedurian, Assistant District Attorney, Media, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Wieand, Cirillo and Popovich, JJ. Popovich and Wieand, JJ., concur in the result.
[ 303 Pa. Super. Page 16]
Appellant, Larry Brinton, was convicted on December 20, 1977, following a jury trial of rape,*fn1 involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,*fn2 corrupting the morals of a minor,*fn3 indecent assault,*fn4 simple assault,*fn5 criminal coercion,*fn6 and criminal conspiracy.*fn7 Appellant appealed the conviction to our court
[ 303 Pa. Super. Page 17]
and we affirmed.*fn8 Appellant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Hearing Act*fn9 (hereafter "PCHA"). The PCHA hearing court denied appellant's petition for relief, and this appeal followed.
Appellant and two companions offered the rape victim a ride to her boyfriend's house. Instead, they took her to a house in Chester where they engaged in smoking a controlled substance. The victim then asked to be taken to her sister's house. The victim passed out and found herself lying on a bed. She was forcibly subjected to multiple sexual deviate acts by appellant and others. The victim went to a nearby house, and later related these incidents to the police.
Appellant has raised four issues on this appeal: (1) whether trial counsel was ineffective in the conduct of the Rule 1100 extension hearing because of failure to interview or call certain witnesses to rebut the Commonwealth's showing of due diligence; (2) whether trial counsel was ineffective for arguing lack of jurisdiction to the jury which resulted from trial counsel's failure to meet with appellant to discuss trial strategy; (3) whether trial and appellate counsel*fn10 were ineffective in failing to argue that the criminal informations filed against appellant were void because they were stamped with a facsimile of the District Attorney's signature; and (4) whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing, on direct appeal, to allege the ineffectiveness of trial counsel.
The standard of our Court to be used in reviewing appellant's allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel has been set forth in Commonwealth v. Crawford, 285 Pa. Super. 169, 427 A.2d 166, 171 (1981):
Our task in cases of this nature . . . encompasses an independent review of the record . . . and an examination of counsel's ...