Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. JAMES GLOVER (03/10/82)

decided: March 10, 1982.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
JAMES GLOVER, APPELLANT



No. 80-3-761, Appeal from the Order of Denial of Post-Conviction Relief dated September 15, 1980, of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, Trial Division, Criminal Section, at No. 1103 November Term, 1969.

COUNSEL

Joseph P. Grimes (Court-appointed), Philadelphia, for appellant.

Robert B. Lawler, Chief, Appeals Div., Deborah Fox, Philadelphia, for appellee.

O'Brien, C. J., and Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott and Hutchinson, JJ. Nix, J., concurs in the result.

Author: Roberts

[ 497 Pa. Page 434]

OPINION OF THE COURT

This is an appeal from an order of the PCHA court denying appellant's petition for post-conviction relief following an evidentiary hearing. Appellant was found guilty by a jury of murder of the first degree, and the judgment of

[ 497 Pa. Page 435]

    sentence of life imprisonment was affirmed by this Court on direct appeal. 446 Pa. 492, 286 A.2d 349 (1972). Appellant subsequently filed a petition for PCHA relief, the denial of which was affirmed by this Court. 465 Pa. 288, 349 A.2d 910 (1976) (per curiam). Two subsequent petitions raising the same issues that had previously been raised were dismissed by the PCHA court without an evidentiary hearing. See generally Commonwealth v. Sangricco, 490 Pa. 126, 415 A.2d 65 (1980). The orders denying relief were not appealed.

In the present PCHA petition, appellant alleges the ineffectiveness of prior counsel for having failed to challenge this Court's affirmance on direct appeal. He contends that the affirmance was based upon an erroneous reading of the record, and that the erroneous reading influenced this Court's disposition of his claims of prosecutorial misconduct and an improper jury charge. Appellant also alleges the ineffectiveness of prior counsel for having failed to challenge the validity of his arrest and arraignment for murder. Because appellant has not established any basis for relief, we affirm the order of the PCHA court.

Appellant's challenge to this Court's affirmance of his judgment of sentence in 1972 is based upon the following statement in the opinion announcing the judgment of the Court:

"Glover attempted to excuse the stabbing by pleading self-defense at trial, but this defense failed as a matter of law, and undoubtedly failed to impress the jury, when Glover admitted during cross-examination that he stabbed Robinson as the latter was attempting to flee from him."

446 Pa. at 495, 286 A.2d at 351. Accepting appellant's contention that such an admission does not appear of record, the PCHA court concluded that this statement did not underlie the Court's reasoning in affirming ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.