Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Rundle
This text of 227 A.2d 895 (Commonwealth ex rel. Brown v. Rundle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Opinion by
Robert Brown was indicted for murder and tried before a Judge and jury. On June 15, 1955, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree and Brown was sentenced to serve not less than six years nor more than fifteen years at Eastern State Penitentiary. Brown did not appeal from that judgment of conviction and sentence.
Eleven years later, on July 20, 1966, Brown filed a petition for relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act—Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, 19 P.S. §§1180-1-1180-14. On August 19, 1966, this petition was dismissed by the lower Court without a hearing, and from that Order Brown filed this appeal.
Brown contends that his conviction and sentence for second degree murder is void because he was “. . . proceeded against, prosecuted and sentenced by a religious establishment. . . .” He apparently argues that his conviction violates the Federal Constitution,
Moreover, Brown argues that the Preamble
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, inter alia, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .” The meaning of “an establishment of religion” is analyzed and interpreted in the recent case of Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203.
Brown’s contentions are not only devoid of any legal merit, they are ridiculous. If his theory were accepted and his conviction invalidated it would (as he admits) nullify every criminal conviction ever obtained in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and would make a mockery of every oath taken by every Judge and every public official from the President of the United States to a magistrate.
Order affirmed.
Relator’s petition and exact contentions are often obscure and very difficult to fathom.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
227 A.2d 895, 424 Pa. 505, 1967 Pa. LEXIS 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-brown-v-rundle-pa-1967.