Commonwealth ex rel. Eichelberger v. Maroney
| Decision Date | 14 January 1955 |
| Citation | 110 A.2d 734,177 Pa.Super. 323 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. John ELCHELBERGER, Appellant, v. James F. MARONEY, Warden, Western State Penitentiary, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Petition for habeas corpus. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County at No. 3542, January Term, 1954, Ralph T Bell, J., entered an order dismissing petition for habeas corpus, and relator appealed. The Superior Court, No. 184 April Term, 1954, Hirt, J., held that sentencing court had power to revoke sentences originally imposed before execution thereof and within term time and resentence defendant to consecutive terms of from 10 to 20 years on each of three charges of armed robbery and amend sentence for prison breach so as to take effect at expiration of last of three consecutive sentences for armed robbery.
Order affirmed.
In habeas corpus proceeding, reviewing court may not pass upon the severity of sentences imposed, where such sentences are within the limits fixed by law.
John Eichelberger, in pro. per.
James F. Malone, Jr., Dist. Atty., A. A. Fiok, Asst. Dist. Atty., Pittsburgh, for appellee.
The defendant John Eichelberger was charged with three separate offenses of armed robbery at Nos. 72, 73 and 77 January Sessions in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County. In the Quarter Sessions at No. 429 April Sessions, 1952, he was charged with prison breach following his escape from the Allegheny County jail, while awaiting disposition of the above felony charges. The court records show that true bills were returned by the grand jury on January 14, 1952 on the three indictments charging armed robbery. On each of the indictments there is an endorsement to that effect signed by the foreman of the grand jury. As to the above charge of prison breach the defendant signed in the presence of an attesting witness, a waiver in the following form: ‘ I, John Eichelberger defendant above named, by virtue of the right granted me under the provisions of the Act of General Assembly of 1939 entitled Act No. 228, approved June 15th, 1939, do hereby waive an indictment by Grand Jury, and do now notify the District Attorney of Allegheny County of such waiver, and request that a District Attorney's Bill Indictment be prepared by the District Attorney in order that I may forthwith enter my plea to said Bill.’ And on April 21, 1952, the defendant in open court pleaded guilty to the charge by endorsement on the indictment to that effect, signed by him. The record as to defendant's plea of guilty in writing is verified by the ‘ Minute Clerk’ of the court. He in like manner pleaded guilty in writing to armed robbery on Bills 72 and 73. In a non-jury trial he was found guilty on Bill 77.
On May 2, 1952, the defendant on his conviction by plea of guilty, was sentenced by Judge Ralph T. Bell on Bill 72 to a term of imprisonment in the Allegheny Workhouse of from 7 1/2 to 20 years, effective as of February 18, 1952. Similarly, on Bill 429 he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment to take effect at the expiration of the above sentence imposed on Bill 72. Sentences on Bills 73 and 77 were suspended. As defendant was leaving the courtroom on May 2, 1952, after the above sentences were imposed he was heard to vilify the sentencing judge and to state in effect that on his next appearance in court he would be charged with murder. He then was immediately returned to the sentencing court and was confronted with the statements he had made. He did not deny them, whereupon the court immediately revoked the sentences which had been imposed and resentenced the defendant on Bills 72, 73, and 77 to consecutive terms of from 10 to 20 years each, in the Western State Penitentiary. The sentence on Bill 429 was amended to take effect at the expiration of the new sentence on Bill 77.
On defendant's petition for habeas corpus a rule was granted returnable December 28, 1953. Competent counsel was appointed to represent him in the proceeding, who, at the hearing on the rule, held on the above date, stated that the only questions presented were of law and that no factual issues were involved. Accordingly relator was not ordered to be produced at the hearing and no testimony was taken. After hearing the court discharged the rule and dismissed the petition. The record in the courts of Oyer and Terminer...
To continue reading
Request your trial