Criminal Law — Practice — Post-conviction proceedings — Allegations of petitioner — Denial of effective assistance of counsel — Conflict of interest in trial counsel's representation — Necessity of evidentiary hearing — Appointment of counsel — Leave to amend.
1. In this post-conviction proceeding, in which it appeared that petitioner alleged, inter alia, that (a) he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of a shortness of preparation time, and that (b) there was a conflict of interest in trial counsel's representation of petitioner's codefendant, it was Held that the hearing court erred in denying the petition without appointing counsel, or conducting an evidentiary hearing, or giving petitioner leave to amend.
2. It was Held that petitioner's first claim was one which, if true, would entitle petitioner to relief, and that the second needed additional factual allegations to entitle petitioner to relief, and that he should be given leave to amend.
OPINION PER CURIAM, June 11, 1970:
Petitioner filed a PCHA petition alleging, inter alia, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because of a shortness of preparation time, and that there was a conflict of interest in trial counsel's representation of petitioner's codefendant. The first claim is one which, if true, would entitle petitioner to relief; the second needs additional factual allegations to entitle petitioner to relief. The hearing court, however, denied the petition without appointing counsel, or conducting an evidentiary hearing, or giving petitioner leave to amend. This was error. See Post Conviction Hearing Act §§ 9, 11, 12, 19 P. S. § 1180-9, -11, -12 (Supp. 1970). Petitioner should be granted a hearing with counsel on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and should be given leave to amend on his conflict of interest claim.
The allocatur is granted, the order of the Superior Court reversed, the order of the hearing court vacated, and the case remanded for further consistent proceedings.