Commonwealth v. Hairston
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Commonwealth v. ShafferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Commonwealth v. RightnourSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. StricklandSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Commonwealth v. CourtsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.