Com. ex rel. Swann v. Shovlin

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before BELL; ROBERTS; COHEN
• Citation: Com. ex rel. Swann v. Shovlin, 223 A.2d 1, 423 Pa. 26 (Pa. 1966)
• Decision Date: 27 September 1966
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Charles SWANN, Appellant, v. Dr. John P. SHOVLIN, M.D., Supt., Farview State Hospital, Waymart, Pa.

Page 1

223 A.2d 1

423 Pa. 26

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Charles SWANN, Appellant, v. Dr. John P. SHOVLIN, M.D., Supt., Farview State Hospital, Waymart, Pa.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Sept. 27, 1966.

Charles Swann, in pro. per.

David M. Boyd, Dist. Atty., Wayne County, Honesdale, for appellee.

James E. Davis, Joseph T. Messina, Robert A. Mills, Robert D. Yeager, Burton R. Laub, Dean Dickinson School of Law, amici curiae.

Before BELL, C.J., and MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

In 1949, relator, Charles Edmond Swann, was tried in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Westmoreland County and convicted of assault and bettery, aggravated assault and battery, and assault and battery with intent to kill. As a result, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 to 7 years and transferred to Western State Penitentiary for confinement.

Shortly thereafter, a petition was filed by the appropriate prison authority in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Westmoreland County averring that relator was suffering from a psychiatric disorder which required his removal to an institution for the mentally ill. ¹ Acting on the petition, the court appointed two physicians to inquire into relator's condition. ² The physicians, after examination, reported to the court that relator suffered 'from a psychosis, possibly paranoid type schezophrenia (sic) with mental deficiency' and recommended treatment and confinement in a psychiatric institution. On the basis of the report and recommendation of the examining physicians, the court entered an order committing relator to Farview State Hospital where he remains confined. ³

On March 31, 1964, relator filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County challenging his continued confinement. The petition alleged both present competency and irregularities in the procedure by which relator was committed to Farview as grounds for relief. ⁴ Pursuant to § 351 of the Mental Health Act of 1951, Act of June 12, 1951, P.L. 533, as amended by the Act of August 14, 1963, P.L. 895, § 3, 50 P.S. § 1241 (Supp.1965), the court transferred the petition for disposition to the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County, 'the common pleas court of the county where * * * (relator) is detained.' The latter court summarily dismissed the petition, refusing to entertain it for failure to comply with 'the minimum standards set forth in the Rules of Court of Wayne County.' On appeal, the Superior Court affirmed per curiam. ⁵ We allowed relator's petition for allocatur.

Section 155 of the Rules of Court of Wayne County provides:

'Whenever a person shall have been declared mentally incompetent or legally committed to an institution for the insane within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, no document purporting to be a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on his behalf will be recognized as such unless one of the following conditions exists:

(a) The document be submitted by a person presumably sane acting as guardian ad litem or next friend of the person seeking the writ, setting forth in said document facts upon which a Writ of Habeas Corpus is sought and verifying the facts therein by oath or affirmation.

(b) The document be presented by a member of the Bar of this Court.

(c) The document be accompanied by a certificate of a duly licensed physican or psychiatrist of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to the effect that the petitioner is now mentally competent and able to responsibly relate and verify the facts set forth in the petition.

(d) Submission of proof to the Court sufficient to rebut the presumption of present lack of mental competency on the part of the petitioner and to establish prima facie that the petitioner is competent to relate the facts upon which he seeks to have a Writ of Habeas Corpus issued and to verify the same.'

Since relator's petition for habeas corpus was presented pro se, compliance was not had with either § 155(a) or (b) of the Rules of Court of Wayne County. Under such circumstances, § 155 required that the petition be accompanied by the certificate set forth in subsection (c), or, in lieu thereof, the submission provided for in subsection (d). No such documents accompanied relator's petition. Thus, treating the petition as defective, the court refused to consider relator's application for relief on the merits. In this the court erred. In light of the nature of the petition, we are of the view that the court's insistence on compliance with § 155 constituted an impermissible abridgement of relator's substantive right to petition for habeas corpus and was improper.

The record reveals that relator's 1949 sentence has expired and that his continued confinement results solely by reason of his commitment to Farview State Hospital. ⁶ If the order of commitment, because of some irregularity which rendered the proceedings void, was unlawful, relator's present confinement is without authority of law and he is entitled to have the writ issue. Cf. Overholser v. Williams, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 252 F.2d 629 (1958); Dooling v. Overholser, 243 F.2d 825 (D.C.Cir. 1957); Overholser v. Treibly, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 389, 147 F.2d 705, cert. denied, 326 U.S. 730, 66 S.Ct. 38, 90 L.Ed. 434 (1945); Howard v. Overholser, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 166, 130 F.2d 429 (1942); Barry v. Hall, 68 App.D.C. 350, 98 F.2d 222 (1938); In re Johnson, 59 Cal.2d 644, 381 P.2d 643 (1963); In re Moynihan, 332 Mo. 1022, 62 S.W.2d 410, 91 A.L.R. 74 (1933); State ex rel. Parsons v. Bushong, 92 Ohio App. 101, 109 N.E.2d 692, 693 (1945). And, while a strong showing of present incompetence might justify the habeas corpus court in conditioning the writ to permit detention pending institution of proper proceedings, see Overholser v. Treibly, supra; Barry v. Hall, supra; State ex rel. Parsons v. Bushong, supra, relator may not be required to place his present mental status in issue in order to challenge the validity of the commitment proceedings. Cf. Overholser v. Williams, supra; Dooling v. Overholser, supra; Overholser v. Treibly, supra; Howard v. Overholser, supra; Barry v. Hall, supra.

Accordingly, the habeas corpus court could not insist on compliance with § 155(c) or (d) of the Rules of Court of Wayne County. The relevance of the requirements therein contained being limited to cases in which relief is sought solely on the ground of present competence, § 155(c) and (d) have no application in the present proceeding.

Our conclusion that non-compliance with § 155(c) or (d) of the Rules of Court of Wayne County may not justify the refusal to entertain relator's petition on the merits is supported by a consideration of §§ 351 and 604 of the Act of 1951. Section 604 provides:

'(a) Any patient or person acting on his behalf may petition the court which committed him or the court of common pleas of the county where he is detained for an order of discharge on the ground that his continued hospitalization is not warranted by reason of mental illness, mental deficiency, epilepsy or inebriety. The petition shall be in writing and shall be sworn to or affirmed and shall be accompanied by an affidavit of a qualified physician stating that he has examined the patient and is of the opinion that the patient is not mentally ill, mentally defective, epileptic or inebriate within the meaning of this act.

Upon receipt of such petition, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine the question of the patient's mental illness, mental dificiency, epilepsy or inebriety: Provided, That a court which committed the patient may transfer the petition for hearing and disposition to the court of common pleas of the county where the patient is detained. The burden of proof shall rest upon the persons responsible for the patient's continued hospitalization.

Upon conclusion of the hearing, the court may dismiss the petition or may make such other order as the court may deem appropriate including, but not being limited to, an order:

(1) In the case of a patient who has been covicted of a crime and whose sentence has not expired, that he be confined in a penal or correctional institution;

(2) In the case of a patient who has been charged with a crim for which he has not been tried, that he be held for disposition of the charges against him;

(3) In the case of a patient who has been convicted and committed to a mental institution in lieu of sentence or a patient who has been convicted but whose sentence has expired or a patient against whom no criminal charge is pending or who has not been convicted of a crime, that he be discharged or be granted a leave of absence subject to such conditions as the court may deem appropriate.'

Act of June 12, 1951, P.L. 533, as amended, 50 P.S. § 1304 (Supp.1965). The Act further provides, in § 351, that '(e)very person committed or involuntarily admitted to or detained in an institution subject to the provisions of this act or any one acting in his behalf may at any time petition for a writ of habeas corpus * * *.' Act of June 12, 1951, P.L. 533, as amended, 50 P.S. § 1241 (Supp.1965).

At the outset, it should be noted that petitions for discharge under § 604 must be accompanied by an affidavit attesting to the present competency of the petitioner. In this respect, § 604 imposes a prerequisite to consideration of petitions filed thereunder comparable to that contained in § 155(c) and (d) of the Rules of Court of Wayne County. Section 351 of the Act imposes no such requirement.

In considering the relationship between §§ 351 and 604 of the Act, we are of the view that the latter was intended by the Legislature to be the exclusive method by which release on the ground of present competency could be sought and that § 604 represents the interposition of statutory remedy which displaces habeas corpus for this limited purpose.

While the doctrine has developed that a court may, absent unusual circumstances or an...