Commonwealth ex rel. Quinn v. Smith
| Citation | 144 Pa.Super. 160,19 A.2d 504 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1941 |
| Docket Number | Misc. Docket 5,119 |
| Parties | Commonwealth ex rel. Quinn v. Smith, Warden |
| Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Petition for writ of habeas corpus. Original jurisdiction, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Michael Quinn v. Herbert Smith Warden Eastern State Penitentiary.
Rule discharged and petition denied.
Herbert L. Maris, for relator.
John H Maurer, Assistant District Attorney and Charles F. Kelley District Attorney, for Commonwealth.
The relator on June 8, 1925 was indicted, tried and convicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County (No. 1052 May Sessions 1925) of feloniously stealing an automobile, (Act of May 1, 1919, P. L. 99), and was sentenced to the Eastern State Penitentiary for a term of not less than five years nor more than ten years. On June 8, 1930 he was paroled. On November 30, 1930, while on parole he was arrested in the State of New Jersey charged with the illegal possession of firearms and the larceny of an automobile, and on March 5, 1931 was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the New Jersey State Prison. The conviction was reversed on March 22, 1932 but, while at liberty pending his appeal, he was arrested in New Jersey on charges of sodomy and carrying weapons unlawfully and on April 30, 1932 was tried and found guilty and sentenced to a term of twenty years in the New Jersey State Penitentiary. He was released from that imprisonment on October 1, 1940 and returned to the Pennsylvania Eastern State Penitentiary to serve the unexpired term (five years) of his maximum sentence under No. 1052 May Sessions 1925.
His petition for writ of habeas corpus alleges that he did not have counsel at the trial on June 8, 1925, was not represented by counsel, was not informed of his right to have counsel, did not have counsel appointed by the court, and did nothing to waive his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. He relies on our decision in Com. ex rel. Schultz v. Smith, Warden, 139 Pa.Super. 357, 11 A.2d 656. It will be noted that the present application is made over fifteen and a half years after the trial, and over ten and a half years after his release on parole; his failure to receive an absolute discharge on June 8, 1935, over five and a half years before the filing of this petition, was due to his incarceration in the prison or penitentiary of another State because of violation of its criminal statutes.
The return filed by the District Attorney, which was not denied by the relator, and the original records sent up by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County, show that relator possessed a considerable acquaintance with the procedure in our criminal courts.
On December 23, 1924 he was tried jointly with Herbert Lippincott and John Lynch, at No. 308 December Sessions 1924, for the larceny of an automobile. A pencil notation on the indictment shows that counsel (Everett A. Schofield) appeared for the defendant Lippincott, and they were all acquitted.
On the same day, the same defendants were brought to trial at No. 309 December Sessions 1924 for operating a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner. This indictment also bears a like notation of the appearance of counsel for Lippincott. Pleas of not guilty were entered, but those pleas were later withdrawn and pleas of guilty entered. Sentence was suspended and defendants discharged on probation for a period of one year, by Judge Davis.
On April 7, 1925, relator was tried jointly with Earl Brady, Charles Roach and John Carpenter, to No. 918 March Sessions 1925, for the larceny of an automobile. Pencil notations on the indictment show that Brady was represented by counsel (A. J. Quinn) and Roach by C. S. Patterson, Jr. The indictment was nol prossed as to Carpenter, and the other three defendants, including relator, were on April 8, 1925, found not guilty.
At the same time, the same defendants were jointly tried at No. 919 March Sessions 1925, charged with operating a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, with the same result, except that Roach was found guilty, and sentence on him was suspended by Judge Audenreid.
Indictments for larceny of another automobile and for operating a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, were found against the same defendants to Nos. 920 and 921 March Sessions 1925, and tried at the same time -- with pencil notation thereon that C. S. Patterson, Jr. appeared for Roach. Verdicts of not guilty were rendered as to all.
On April...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cynkowski
...of the State where it appears that it might be prejudiced in establishing the defendant's guilt on retrial. Cf. Commonwealth v. Smith, 144 Pa.Super. 160, 19 A.2d 504 (1941) and Taft, J. concurring in In re Levenson, 154 Ohio St. 278, 95 N.E.2d 760 (1950), with Jones v. Heinze, supra, and Al......
-
Jablonowski v. State
...15 N.J.Super. 417, 422, 83 A.2d 539 (App.Div.1951), affirmed 9 N.J. 402, 88 A.2d 537 (1951), supra; Commonwealth ex rel. Quinn v. Smith, 144 Pa.Super. 160, 19 A.2d 504 (Super.Ct.1941). Hence in our view the better rule is that the writ is available to discharge him from confinement under th......
-
State v. Ballard
...of his right to counsel may be justified because the petitioner's long delay has prejudiced the State (Commonwealth ex rel. Quinn v. Smith, 144 Pa.Super. 160, 19 A.2d 504 (1941); Taft, J. concurring In re Levenson, 154 Ohio St. 278, 95 N.E.2d 760 (1950)); we are satisfied that in the instan......
-
State v. Cynkowski
...to establish the alleged crime. To the same effect is the decision of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Com. ex rel. Quinn v. Smith, 144 Pa.Super. 160, 19 A.2d 504 (1941). See also the opinion of a minority of the judges of the Supreme Court of Ohio, In re Levenson, 154 Ohio St. 278, 95 N.......