Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Myers

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Myers

168 A.2d 754, 194 Pa. Super. 377, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 712

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 22, 1961

DocketAppeal, No. 17

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 168 A.2d 754 (Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Myers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Myers, 168 A.2d 754, 194 Pa. Super. 377, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 712 (Pa. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Wright, J.,

Anthony Baerchus has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This matter has been before us on three prior occasions. See Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Burke, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 400, 94 A. 2d 87; Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Day, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 455, 115 A. 2d 894; Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Myers, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 461, 135 A. 2d 779.

On December 8, 1947, appellant was sentenced in Lackawanna County to serve three consecutive terms of five to ten years in the Eastern State Penitentiary on charges of burglary. On the first appeal we rejected a contention that appellant’s confession of guilt had been obtained by coercion. On the second appeal we rejected a contention that appellant’s sentences had been improperly aggregated and entered as a minimum of fifteen years and a maximum of thirty years. See the Act of June 25, 1937, P. L. 2093, 19 P.S. 897. On the third appeal we rejected a contention that appellant had been improperly cross-examined at his trial, and that he had received prejudicial newspaper publicity.

In the instant petition appellant again contends that his confession was coerced. He also contends that the trial judge was prejudiced, that sentences were imposed [379]*379in chambers by “a kangaroo court”,¹ that one of the jurors was a personal friend of the warden of the county jail, and that the conviction was obtained as the result of perjured testimony and on evidence that was generally insufficient. The record discloses that appellant was represented by counsel at his trial, that his several contentions were not raised by post-conviction motions, and that no appeals were taken from the sentences imposed.

We recently reiterated in Commonwealth ex rel. Lockhart v. Myers, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 531, 165 A. 2d 400, that relief from alleged trial errors may not be obtained by habeas corpus. The writ is not a substitute for a new trial motion or an appeal. Furthermore, repetitious petitions for habeas corpus may not be employed as devices to secure appellate review of adjudicated matters: Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrickson v. Hendrick, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 559, 165 A. 2d 261. It is readily apparent that appellant has been afforded ample opportunity to demonstrate a denial of due process, and that he has failed to do so. We are in entire accord with the action of Judge Nealon in dismissing the instant petition.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Wright, J.,

Anthony Baerchus has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This matter has been before us on three prior occasions. See Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Burke, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 400, 94 A. 2d 87; Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Day, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 455, 115 A. 2d 894; Commonwealth ex rel. Baerchus v. Myers, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 461, 135 A. 2d 779.

On December 8, 1947, appellant was sentenced in Lackawanna County to serve three consecutive terms of five to ten years in the Eastern State Penitentiary on charges of burglary. On the first appeal we rejected a contention that appellant’s confession of guilt had been obtained by coercion. On the second appeal we rejected a contention that appellant’s sentences had been improperly aggregated and entered as a minimum of fifteen years and a maximum of thirty years. See the Act of June 25, 1937, P. L. 2093, 19 P.S. 897. On the third appeal we rejected a contention that appellant had been improperly cross-examined at his trial, and that he had received prejudicial newspaper publicity.

In the instant petition appellant again contends that his confession was coerced. He also contends that the trial judge was prejudiced, that sentences were imposed [379]*379in chambers by “a kangaroo court”,¹ that one of the jurors was a personal friend of the warden of the county jail, and that the conviction was obtained as the result of perjured testimony and on evidence that was generally insufficient. The record discloses that appellant was represented by counsel at his trial, that his several contentions were not raised by post-conviction motions, and that no appeals were taken from the sentences imposed.

We recently reiterated in Commonwealth ex rel. Lockhart v. Myers, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 531, 165 A. 2d 400, that relief from alleged trial errors may not be obtained by habeas corpus. The writ is not a substitute for a new trial motion or an appeal. Furthermore, repetitious petitions for habeas corpus may not be employed as devices to secure appellate review of adjudicated matters: Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrickson v. Hendrick, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 559, 165 A. 2d 261. It is readily apparent that appellant has been afforded ample opportunity to demonstrate a denial of due process, and that he has failed to do so. We are in entire accord with the action of Judge Nealon in dismissing the instant petition.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.2d 754, 194 Pa. Super. 377, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-baerchus-v-myers-pasuperct-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack