# Commonwealth v. Travaglia

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · September 29, 1983 · 502 Pa. 474

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635348

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Michael J. TRAVAGLIA, Appellant; COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. John Charles LESKO, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** September 29, 1983
- **Citations:** 502 Pa. 474; 467 A.2d 288; 1983 Pa. LEXIS 682
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Roberts
- **Judges:** Zappala, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott
- **Cited by:** 137 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635348

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the term “convicted” in the Section 9711(d)(10) aggravating circumstance, applying where the defendant has been convicted of another offense for which a life sentence or death was imposable, meant a determination of guilt, as opposed to final imposition of sentenc…
- stating that although Miranda does not require that police provide a suspect with information as to the crime under investigation, this Court has - 14 - J-S09016-26 held “a suspect must have ‘an awareness of the general nature of the transaction giving rise to the investigatio…
- stating that he joins “in the Court’s mandate today with the caveat that the death penalty will be carried out only after a review of [the challenges to the pleas] by this Court and only if after such review it is determined that the pleas were voluntarily and knowingly entere…
- holding that the term “convicted” in the Section 9711(d)(10

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Because appellants are presently represented by the same counsel who represented them at trial and at the death penalty hearing, there has been no meaningful inquiry into whether appellants have been afforded their constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. In the absence *511 of such an inquiry, the reasons for counsel’s strategy, which do not appear of record, cannot be known, and it cannot be determined whether there existed evidence which should have been presented by counsel but was not.
Accordingly, the record should be remanded for the appointment of new counsel, who would be obliged to submit a petition to the court of common pleas addressing the effectiveness of trial counsel. As previously stated, “[ujntil a hearing on counsel’s effectiveness has been held, this Court cannot fairly state that it has discharged its statutory duty to provide a thorough review of the judgment^] of sentence of death.” Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer, 500 Pa. 16, 77 , 454 A.2d 937, 971 (1982) (Roberts, J., joined by O’Brien, C.J., dissenting).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9635348. Public record. Not legal advice.