No. 02978 Philadelphia 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Philadelphia County at No. 1128-1132 May Term, 1975.
Catherine M. Harper, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Jane C. Greenspan, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Commonwealth, appellee.
Rowley, Popovich and Cercone, JJ. Rowley, J., noted his dissent.
[ 330 Pa. Super. Page 316]
This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia denying the Petition for Relief under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act (PCHA), 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9541 et seq., of appellant, Dorothy Finley. On October 17, 1975, after a non-jury trial, appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree, robbery, carrying firearms without a license, possessing instruments of crime, prohibited offensive weapon and criminal conspiracy. Since the convictions involved a homicide, direct appeal was taken to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where all the judgments of sentence were affirmed by Per Curiam Opinion at Commonwealth v. Finley, 477 Pa. 211, 383 A.2d 898 (1978). On appeal to the Supreme Court, appellant raised two issues: (1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdicts and (2) whether the search warrant was based on illegally obtained evidence rendering the evidence obtained pursuant thereto inadmissible. The Supreme Court "found no merit in either
[ 330 Pa. Super. Page 317]
of these arguments". Commonwealth v. Finley, supra, 477 Pa. p. 211, 383 A.2d p. 898.
On April 9, 1979, appellant filed a pro se PCHA petition which merely repeated the allegations raised in direct appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. This PCHA petition was denied without a hearing and without appointment of counsel because "[i]n the instant petition the petitioner again raises the precise issues previously raised on appeal . . . ." Opinion, Blake, J., at 2. Subsequently, an appeal of the decision of the PCHA court was taken to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which vacated the lower court order and remanded the case to the lower court with instructions that counsel be appointed for appellant if she were found to be indigent. In compliance with that Order, Michael A. Seidman, Esquire, of Philadelphia, was appointed counsel for appellant. Mr. Seidman concluded that no arguably meritorious issues existed for appellant in her PCHA petition, whereupon he was instructed by the lower court to adopt the following procedure:
Counsel was instructed that where he had completed a comprehensive review of the entire record and the applicable law, and had interviewed defendant and concluded that the record was devoid of arguably meritorious contentions, counsel should write this court in letter form detailing not only the nature and extent of his review, but also listing each issue Defendant wished to have raised, followed by an explanation why those issues were meritless. At that point, this Court would conduct its own independent review and, if our conclusions coincided with counsel's the Petition would be dismissed without a hearing and the Defendant would be apprised of her appellate rights. Opinion Blake, J. at 5.
Counsel adhered to those guidelines and wrote the following letter to the court:
I have reviewed the Notes of Testimony in the above matter and I have met with the defendant to discuss her Post Conviction Hearing Act Petition. I cannot find any issues to ...