Commonwealth ex rel. Patton v. Tees

• Decision Date: 16 November 1955
• Citation: 118 A.2d 585,179 Pa.Super. 605
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH ex rel. James PATTON, Appellant, v. Walter TEES, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

118 A.2d 585

179 Pa.Super. 605

COMMONWEALTH ex rel. James PATTON, Appellant, v. Walter TEES, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

November 16, 1955

Proceeding for habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. The Court of Common Pleas, No. 7, Philadelphia County, as of September Term, 1954, No. 3802, Theodore L. Reimel, J., entered order dismissing petition for writ and relator appealed. The Superior Court, No. 179, October Term, 1955, Hirt, J., held that where state prisoner was surrendered to federal authority on writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and was subsequently returned to state prison to finish sentence prisoner could not assert in instant proceeding that his surrender to federal authorities and his return were accomplished without invoking procedure of extradition.

Order affirmed.

Hanley S. Rubinsohn, Philadelphia, for appellant.

William T. Gennetti, Christopher F. Edley, Victor Wright, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Vincent G. Panati, First Asst. Dist. Atty., Samuel Dash, Dist. Atty., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before RHCDES, P. J., and HIRT, ROSS, WRIGHT and ERVIN, JJ.

HIRT, Judge.

Relator, in April 1951, pleaded guilty to two charges of armed robbery and was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment in the Eastern State Penitentiary. The total minimum of the two sentences was four years and the maximum eight years, to be computed from March 28, 1951. After relator's commitment a number of detainers from other states were filed with the warden of the penitentiary. On May 9, 1951, a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama for the production of the relator for trial on a charge of robbery in that court. A United States Marshal submitted the writ for execution to the then warden of the Eastern State Penitentiary. On the advice of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and with the assent of the sentencing judge the warden honored the writ and released relator into the custody of the United States Marshal. He was taken by the Marshal to Birmingham Alabama, where he was tried and convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 15 years following the service of his sentences in Pennsylvania. On June 20, 1951, in accordance with the terms of the writ, relator was returned to Pennsylvania and to the custody of the the warden of Eastern State Penitentiary by the United States Marshal. On November 5, 1954, relator filed his petition for habeas corpus ad subjiciendum in the present proceeding contending that his detention in the Eastern State Penitentiary is illegal. The writ was awarded but, after hearing, relator was remanded to custody for service of the remaining terms of his sentences for armed robbery in Pennsylvania.

In this appeal he contends that he was taken from the Eastern State Penitentiary on the writ ad prosequendum, summarily, in violation of his rights under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act of July 8, 1941, P.L. 288, 19 P.S. § 191.1 et seq.; and that without invoking the procedure of extradition, the federal authorities illegally returned him to the Eastern State Penitentiary. For these reasons he contends that he is entitled to be discharged from custody.

Aside from the illogic of appellant's contention there is no legal justification for his appeal. One forcibly brought to Pennsylvania against his will and without extradition proceedings has no standing to question the jurisdiction of a Pennsylvania criminal court to try him, when regularly indicted for crimes committed in this State. Commonwealth ex rel. Master v. Boldi, 166 Pa.Super. 413, 72 A.2d 150. On the same principle even though this appellant were surrendered to the Alabama authorities, and returned to the penitentiary here, in violation of his rights, he has no valid ground for complaint in this proceeding. The function of the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is to determine whether a person is presently detained unlawfully. Appellant will be properly detained for the term of the unserved portion of the combined sentences on which he was originally sentenced. How the penitentiary authorities regained custody of him for that purpose is of no moment. Dean v. State of Ohio, D.C., 107 F.Supp.937.

But appellant's rights were not violated in any respect...