Com. ex rel. Swilley v. Maroney

Decision Date22 March 1966
PartiesCOMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Anthony R. SWILLEY, Appellant, v. James F. MARONEY, Supt., State Correctional Institution, Pittsburgh, Pa.
CourtPennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 242

218 A.2d 242
420 Pa. 419
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Anthony R. SWILLEY, Appellant,
v.
James F. MARONEY, Supt., State Correctional Institution,
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
March 22, 1966.

Page 243

Anthony R. Swilley, in pro. per.

Joseph M. Smith, Asst. Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

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

[420 Pa. 420] BELL, Chief Justice.

In 1952 relator was captured in a gun battle while trying to escape from the theatre which he had just robbed and in which he had shot and killed an usher. While represented by counsel, relator pleaded guilty to murder and then took the witness stand and Testified in detail to the murder. The Court after hearing the evidence found him guilty of (felony) murder in the first degree and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He now appeals from the dismissal, without a hearing, of his petition for habeas corpus.

Relator alleges (1) a confession was made by him (a) without counsel after he had asked the police to call his family in order to obtain legal assistance and the police had refused this request, 1 and (b) that after he had been intimidated and abused, 1 he reluctantly confessed, and (2) that he attended both the preliminary hearing and the coroner's inquest without counsel, and (3) that the officer's testimony as to his confession was illegally admitted in evidence at his trial. We note (a) that relator's Testimony was virtually identical with that given by the police officer who took his confession and (b) the testimony of that officer was admitted without objection.

In Pennsylvania, failure of an accused to be represented by counsel at a preliminary (or magistrate's) hearing or at a coroner's inquest, is not a violation of his constitutional rights, in the absence of unusual and prejudicial circumstances which transform either of these proceedings into a critical stage. Commonwealth ex rel. Hobbs v. Russell, 420 Pa. 1, 215 A.2d 858; Commonwealth[420 Pa. 421] ex rel. McCant v. Rundle, 418 Pa. 394, 211 A.2d 460; Commonwealth ex rel. Lofton v. Russell, 418 Pa. 517, 211 A.2d 427; Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Rundle, 416 Pa. 321, 206 A.2d 283; Commonwealth ex rel. Maisenhelder v. Rundle, 414 Pa. 11, 198 A.2d 565. No unusual or prejudicial circumstances existed in this case.

Generally, even if relator's allegations are true as to the events which preceded the trial, his subsequent guilty plea and His detailed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT