Com. ex rel. Woodson v. Myers

• Citation: 175 A.2d 894,196 Pa.Super. 415
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Clinton WOODSON, Appellant, v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent.
• Decision Date: 16 November 1961
• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Page 894

175 A.2d 894

196 Pa.Super. 415

COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Clinton WOODSON, Appellant, v. David N. MYERS, Superintendent.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 16, 1961.

Application for Allocation Denied Jan. 30, 1962.

Clinton Woodson, in pro. per.

Arlen Specter, Asst. Dist. Atty., Paul M. Chalfin, First Asst. Dist. Atty., James C. Crumlish, Jr., Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, submitted, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY and FLOOD, JJ.

RHODES, President Judge.

On June 26, 1956, appellant was sentenced to a term of not less than two years nor more than ten years on a bill of indictment charging robbery. The effective commitment date was February 28, 1955. On May 28, 1959, appellant was paroled. On March 27, 1960, the appellant was convicted on bills Nos. 455 and 456, April Sessions, 1960, for robbery, aggravated assault and battery, and assault and battery. He was sentenced to the State Correctional Institution at Philadelphia for a term of not less than three years nor more than ten years on bill No. 455, and a term of not less than one and one-half years nor more than three years on bill No. 456, the sentences to run consecutively. The appellant is now serving the unexpired balance of the sentence from which he had been paroled. The release date on this sentence is March 2, 1966. Appellant has appealed from bill No. 455.

An application for a writ of habeas corpus is premature if made before the expiration of an admittedly valid minimum sentence. Com. ex rel. Thompson v. Day, 182 Pa.Super. 644, 646, 128 A.2d 133. See Com. ex rel. Gearhart v. Cavell, 187 Pa.Super. 464, 465, 144 A.2d 451. However, the order of the court does not rest on that ground alone. Every phase of the application was explored on the merits and no issues of fact were found requiring an award of the writ.

The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Carroll of the Court of Common Pleas No. 2 of Philadelphia County.

The opinion of President Judge Carroll follows:

This matter is before the Court by petition for writ of habeas corpus. In his petition the relator avers that he did not receive a preliminary hearing prior to his trial on June 2, 1960, in which he was convicted of the charge of 'aggravated robbery' on Bill No. 455, April Sessions, 1960; further that he did not have any information or knowledge of the crime of which he was charged prior to trial and, finally, that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to warrant a finding of guilty to a robbery charge.

It is clear that the averments of the relator's petition relating to matters occurring before his trial and the sufficiency of the evidence at the time of trial are not cognizable by a writ of habeas corpus. See Commonwealth ex rel. Lockhart v. Myers, 193 Pa.Super. 531, 165 A.2d 400 (1960), where the Court, in an exhaustive review of the writ, stated at page 536, 165 A.2d at page 403 et seq:

'After a plea and trial on the merits, the defendant may not by habeas corpus attack the sufficiency of the indictment. Commonwealth ex rel. Burge v. Ashe, 168 Pa.Super. 271, 77 A.2d 725; Commonwealth ex rel. Sell v. Tees, 179 Pa.Super. 549, 117 A.2d 813; Commonwealth ex rel. Shultz v. Myers, 182 Pa.Super. 431, 128 A.2d 103. Defects and irregularities in the information, warrant and proceedings before the magistrate are cured by pleading to the indictment and going to trial. Commonwealth v. Schoen, 25 Pa.Super. 211; Commonwealth ex rel. Rushkowski v. Burke, 171 Pa.Super. 1, 89 A.2d 899; Commonwealth v. George, 178 Pa.Super. 261, 116 A.2d 253. The sufficiency or regularity of proceedings prior to indictment may not be considered on habeas corpus. Commonwealth ex rel. Geisel v. Ashe, 165 Pa.Super. 41, 68 A.2d 360; Commonwealth ex rel. Scasserra v. Keenan, 175 Pa.Super. 636, 106 A.2d 843; Commonwealth ex rel. Scasserra v. Maroney, 179 Pa.Super. 150, 115 A.2d 912; Commonwealth ex rel. Taylor v. Johnston, 181 Pa.Super. 600, 124 A.2d 389.'

See also Commonwealth ex rel. Butler v. Banmiller, 190 Pa.Super. 474, at page 154 A.2d 330, at page 331 (1959), where the Court said:

'It is apparent that relator's complaint concerns the quantity and quality of the evidence produced to sustain his conviction. He does not challenge the sentence. If a petitioner is legally detained in prison, he is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. Before he is entitled to the writ, he must show that he has a right to be discharged. Commonwealth ex rel. Salerno v. Banmiller, 189 Pa.Super. 156, 149 A.2d 501. A writ of habeas corpus...