No. 01130 Philadelphia 1982, APPEAL FROM THE PCHA MARCH 30, 1982 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, CRIMINAL NO. 769-770 JUN TERM 1970
Gary P. Heslin, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Robert B. Lawler, Assistant District Attorney, Philadelphia, for Com., appellee.
Cirillo, Del Sole and Popovich, JJ. Del Sole, J., concurs in the result. Popovich, J., files a concurring statement.
[ 335 Pa. Super. Page 302]
On June 9, 1972 the appellant, represented by counsel, entered a negotiated guilty plea for three years probation on charges of burglary, assault on a police officer, and resisting arrest. Judge Mirarchi accepted the plea and advised the appellant of his right to appeal and the grounds
[ 335 Pa. Super. Page 303]
upon which such an appeal could be made. On November 20, 1973 appellant appeared before Judge Mirarchi in violation of his probation. He was sentenced to a new probationary term.
On December 13, 1978, six years and six months after the guilty plea, the appellant once again appeared before Judge Mirarchi in violation of his probation. Probation was revoked and appellant was sentenced to ten to twenty years imprisonment. On October 26, 1979, seven years and four months after the guilty plea, appellant filed a petition under the Post Conviction Hearing Act. In the petition the appellant contends that he is entitled to relief based on an inadequate guilty plea colloquy.
The issue with which we are confronted was addressed by our Court in Commonwealth v. Kale, 312 Pa. Super. 69, 458 A.2d 239 (1983) where the appellant sought relief based on defective guilty plea colloquies. See also Commonwealth v. Courts, 315 Pa. Super. 124, 461 A.2d 828 (1983); Commonwealth v. Strickland, 306 Pa. 516, 452 A.2d 844 (1983). The appellant in Kale, as does the appellant in the instant case, contended that the colloquies were defective in that they failed to recite the elements of the offenses to which the pleas were being entered and that counsel was ineffective for failing to be certain that the pleas so entered were knowing, intelligent and voluntary.
In Kale and in the case at bar the appellants both failed to explain the delays in filing their requests.
These unexplained delays bar a consideration of the merits of the several claims which appellant seeks to assert in collateral attacks on his prior convictions. Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 498 Pa. 342, 354, 446 A.2d 591, 597 (1982) (Concurring Opinion by Roberts, J., with O'Brien, C.J., and Nix, J., joining); Commonwealth v. Minarik, 493 Pa. 573, 583, 427 A.2d 623, 628-629 (1981) (Concurring Opinion by Roberts, J., with O'Brien, C.J., and Nix, J., joining). See also: ...