Com. ex rel. Blackman v. Banmiller
| Decision Date | 02 January 1962 |
| Citation | 176 A.2d 682,405 Pa. 560 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Robert BLACKMAN v. William J. BANMILLER, Warden State Correctional Institution at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Appeal of Robert BLACKMAN. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Robert Blackman in pro. per.
Arlen Specter, Asst. Dist. Atty., Paul M. Chalfin, First Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., William H. Wolf, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before BELL, C. J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, BOK, EAGEN, and ALPERN, JJ.
The order of the Court below is affirmed on Judge Sloane's Second Opinion--April of 1961.
Relator filed what he terms a 'Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and a Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Judgment.' We denied a rule to show cause why the petition should not be granted; we dismissed the writ.
Essentially the petition in its main consideration is a repetition of another filed by relator a little over a year ago. That one was entitled simply 'Writ of Error,' but since any appeal period had long expired, it was treated as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. That petition was dismissed in an opinion dated April 4, 1960. The two petitions are virtually alike (except as noted below) and the earlier decision (which was not appealed) disposes of most of the contentions made by relator in the present writ. 'A petition for writ of habeas corpus which is repetitious of previous petitions is properly refused': Com. ex rel. Cox v. Banmiller, 195 Pa.Super. 218, 220, 171 A.2d 544, 545.
Relator now does bring forward contentions properly raised by habeas corpus though he does not so denominate his writ, and comment may be made as to these. First, he makes the bald averment that he was 'coerced by court officials' into changing his plea from 'not guilty' to 'guilty.' The assertion is without even hint of fact. The record shows relator was represented by counsel; the general plea of guilty to murder was made and entered with their approval and we take it represented their full thinking and proper judgment; no appeal was taken upon sentence in 1948. Cadit quaestio.
There is an allegation that relator was not given a prompt preliminary hearing. The unlawful homicide in this case occurred September 28, 1946. Relator fled to Roxborough, North Carolina. While a fugitive, and as a fugitive, he was indicted on October 31, 1946, in two indictments, one charging murder, and the other voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. He remained away, a fugitive, until he was apprehended in North Carolina in early March, 1948. He was brought to Philadelphia; he was committed to prison and on March 23, 1948, he was arraigned before President Judge Oliver and pleaded 'not guilty'. On April 14, 1948, with counsel, he withdrew his plea of 'not guilty' and pleaded guilty to murder generally before Kun, Flood, and Sloane, JJ. These three judges 'after a full and complete hearing of all the evidence both for the Commonwealth as well as for the defendant [adjudged] the defendant Guilty of Murder of the First Degree' and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment.
Relator cannot complain that he had no preliminary hearing before indictment when his own disappearance and self-initiated absence made a preliminary hearing impossible. The district attorney had the right to present bills before the grand jury while relator was a fugitive, and after true indictments were brought, there was no need for a preliminary hearing. Under the circumstances relator had no right to a preliminary hearing. See Com. ex rel. Bandi v. Ashe, 367 Pa. 234, 80 A.2d 62 (). See also Com. v. O'Brien, 181 Pa.Super. 382, 124 A.2d 666 (appeal dismissed 389 Pa. 109, 132 A.2d 265). 1 Further relator did not move to quash the indictments before his trial, and it is now too late either by habeas corpus (or coram nobis, his present writ) to do so.
No prejudice resulted to relator from the fact that some three weeks elapsed between the time he was returned to Philadelphia and his arraignment. There is no claim of illegally obtained evidence or involuntary confession during that period.
Without merit is relator's claim that he was compelled to testify against himself and his privilege against self-incrimination was violated....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Coyle
...181 Pa.Super. 382, 124 A.2d 666 (1956); Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 396 Pa. 491, 152 A.2d 726 (1959); Commonwealth ex rel. Blackman v. Banmiller, 405 Pa. 560, 176 A.2d 682 (1962). The appellant next complains that the indictment was based on insufficient competent testimony and should have bee......
-
Com. v. Bunter
...181 Pa.Super. 382, 124 A.2d 666 (1956); Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 396 Pa. 491, 152 A.2d 726 (1959); Commonwealth ex rel. Blackman v. Banmiller, 405 Pa. 560, 176 A.2d 682 (1962).' and directly alluded to by Mr. Justice Roberts in the McCloskey case, 443 Pa. at 129, 277 A.2d at 770 (1971): 'Th......
-
United States ex rel. Crosby v. Brierley, 17044.
...ex rel. West v. Myers, supra; it also operates as a waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination, Commonwealth ex rel. Blackman v. Banmiller, 405 Pa. 560, 176 A.2d 682 (1962); and it admits the facts pleaded in the indictment so as to obviate the necessity for corroborating evidence. ......
-
Trusty v. State, A--16925
...Sierra, 117 Cal.App.2d 649, 256 P.2d 577 (1953). State v. Knudtson, 11 Idaho 524, 83 P. 226 (Idaho 1905). Commonwealth ex rel. Blackman v. Banmiller, 405 Pa. 560, 176 A.2d 682 (1962). United States v. Cioffi, 242 F.2d 473 (2d Cir. 1957). State ex rel. Jones v. Tahash, 276 Minn. 188, 149 N.W......