Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Hairston

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 20, 1984No. 223Published

1DissentCirillo, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that since the appellant was not informed that he had 30 days within which to perfect a direct appeal, his delay of 4 years, 8 months in filing a P.C.H.A. Petition was implicitly explained and, therefore, he is entitled to an evidentiary hearing. I cannot condone such an abuse of the Post Conviction Hearing Act.

During the proceedings held on April 19, 1977, the Honorable John C. Dowling took the time on 2 occasions to inform the appellant of his right to file a direct appeal.1

THE COURT: The only rights you have, after you are found guilty, would be…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ShafferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Commonwealth v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Commonwealth v. RightnourSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  4. Commonwealth v. StricklandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Commonwealth v. CourtsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API