2-1 panel decision with Wieand, J., dissenting
How later courts described this case
- 2-1 panel decision with Wieand, J., dissenting
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIEAND, Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. This is not a “borderline case.” Appellant’s assertion that trial counsel promised him a “county time” sentence in return for a plea of guilty is patently frivolous. Such a promise is contradicted by appel *184 lant’s express representations to the contrary at the time of the guilty plea colloquy. “A criminal defendant who elects to plead quilty has a duty to answer questions truthfully. We cannot permit a defendant to postpone the final disposition of his case by lying to the court and later alleging that his lies were induced by the prompting [or ineffectiveness] of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 242 Pa.Superior Ct. 240, 247, 363 A.2d 1249, 1253 (1976).
Becausé appellant’s PCHA assertion is flatly and unequivocally contradicted by his own statements made during the guilty plea colloquy, I would affirm the order dismissing the PCHA petition without a hearing.