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. LEE ROY SWIFT (04/30/82)

filed: April 30, 1982.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
LEE ROY SWIFT, APPELLANT



No. 927 Pittsburgh, 1980, Appeal from Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, Fayette County at Nos. 137 and 138 and fractions of 1977; 170, 184, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 253, 275, 276, 277, 278, 338, 315 and 316 of 1977.

COUNSEL

Steve P. Leskinen, Uniontown, for appellant.

Gerald Solomon, District Attorney, Uniontown, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Hester, Popovich and Montgomery, JJ. Hester, J., files a dissenting statement.

Author: Popovich

[ 299 Pa. Super. Page 79]

This is an appeal from the order dismissing appellant's PCHA petition*fn1 after a hearing. We vacate the order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Originally, appellant entered a plea of not guilty and moved for the suppression of statements which he had given to the police subsequent to his arrest. The suppression court denied the motion. Appellant then withdrew his plea of not guilty.

On June 8, 1977, appellant then entered guilty pleas to multiple counts of burglary, arson, and related crimes, and he subsequently was sentenced to a period of incarceration. No direct appeal was taken from the judgment of sentence.

[ 299 Pa. Super. Page 80]

Some two and a half years later, appellant filed a pro se PCHA petition alleging primarily that his citizen's arrest was accomplished unlawfully; that subsequent statements given by him and evidence obtained from his home were procured in violation of his constitutional rights; that his original counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the denial of his suppression motion, all of which motivated him to enter guilty pleas and thus rendering such pleas defective.

Counsel was appointed for appellant and a hearing was held on the petition on August 14, 1980. The petition was dismissed, and this appeal followed.

Appellant contends that the court below improperly restricted the post conviction hearing to a review of the guilty plea colloquy, and should have allowed appellant to present evidence in support of his claim that his guilty plea was induced improperly because of the existence of constitutionally infirm evidence (i.e., his arrest, statements given by him and other physical evidence was illegally obtained), ...


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.