Commonwealth ex rel. Clark v. Maroney

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Clark v. Maroney

186 A.2d 422, 199 Pa. Super. 552

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 12, 1962

DocketAppeal, No. 244

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 186 A.2d 422 (Commonwealth ex rel. Clark v. Maroney) 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. Clark v. Maroney, 186 A.2d 422, 199 Pa. Super. 552 (Pa. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

After a non-jury trial in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny County before Honorable David H. Weiss of the Tenth Judicial District, specially presiding, relator was adjudicated as guilty on charges of forgery of narcotic prescriptions, and sentenced to terms totaling not less than six years nor more than twelve years in the Western State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh.

Relator was represented at that time by counsel of his own choice. No appeal was taken from the judgments of sentence.

Relator’s present contention seems to be that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. His petition for writ of habeas corpus was dimissed by Judge Weiss.

Relator’s complaint was a matter for defense, reviewable for possible error on appeal and not by habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an ap[554]*554peal and cannot be used to inquire into matters that should have been raised on motion for a new trial. Com. ex rel. Stoner v. Myers, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 185 A. 2d 806.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

After a non-jury trial in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny County before Honorable David H. Weiss of the Tenth Judicial District, specially presiding, relator was adjudicated as guilty on charges of forgery of narcotic prescriptions, and sentenced to terms totaling not less than six years nor more than twelve years in the Western State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh.

Relator was represented at that time by counsel of his own choice. No appeal was taken from the judgments of sentence.

Relator’s present contention seems to be that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. His petition for writ of habeas corpus was dimissed by Judge Weiss.

Relator’s complaint was a matter for defense, reviewable for possible error on appeal and not by habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an ap[554]*554peal and cannot be used to inquire into matters that should have been raised on motion for a new trial. Com. ex rel. Stoner v. Myers, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 341, 185 A. 2d 806.

The order of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.2d 422, 199 Pa. Super. 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-clark-v-maroney-pasuperct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack