Commonwealth ex rel. Taylor v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 17 July 1956 |
| Citation | 181 Pa.Super. 600,124 A.2d 389 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania ex rel. Roy T. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Frank C. JOHNSTON, Warden, Western State penitentiary, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Submitted April 9, 1956
Appeal, No. 32, April T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County, Oct. T., 1955, No. 210, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Roy T. Taylor v. Frank C. Johnston Warden, Western State Penitentiary. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus proceeding.
Order entered denying petition, opinion by BAUER, J. Relator appealed.
Order affirmed.
Roy T. Taylor, appellant, in propria persona.
L Alexander Sculco, District Attorney and John K Best, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and CARR, JJ.
On November 4, 1955 relator presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County. The same day the district attorney filed an answer thereto and on November 7, 1955 the court refused the writ without a hearing. From that order relator appeals. Roy T. Taylor is presently confined in the Western State Penitentiary at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania having been sentenced on February 18, 1955 to serve a term of not less than seven years nor more than fourteen years after pleading guilty to an indictment charging him with burglary and larceny. On the same day sentence was suspended on an indictment to which he had also entered a plea of guilty charging him with corrupting the morals of minors. Although the averments in his petition to the court below and his appeal to this court vary somewhat, the essential questions concern the irregularities of the preliminary proceedings and the circumstances under which he was induced to enter pleas of guilty to the indictments.
We do not deem it necessary to discuss the averments concerning irregularities in the preliminary proceedings. Our books are filled with cases which hold that the sufficiency or regularity of proceedings prior to a true bill returned by a grand jury on a bill of indictment and the entry of a plea of guilty thereon should not be first considered here on habeas corpus: Com. ex rel. Geisel vs. Ashe, 165 Pa.Super. 41.
Under the circumstances of this case the averment that relator was tricked into entering pleas of guilty does not warrant granting the writ. He sets forth in his petition to the court below that his attorney told him, "he would not receive much time," but his appeal to the court is that his attorney told him, "you won't be given any time, you just sign here and I will take care of everything."
In determining whether or not the allegation warrants serious consideration we must consider the circumstances under which it was made. Both indictments bear the signatures of the relator to the plea of guilty and the crimes charged in the indictments appear directly above his signature. Contrary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial