Commonwealth ex rel. Gobert v. Myers

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Gobert v. Myers

126 A.2d 525, 182 Pa. Super. 254, 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 383

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 13, 1956

DocketAppeal, No. 223

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 126 A.2d 525 (Commonwealth ex rel. Gobert 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. Gobert v. Myers, 126 A.2d 525, 182 Pa. Super. 254, 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 383 (Pa. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Relator was tried on April 19, 1955, in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County on four bills of indictment charging- carrying a • concealed weapon, burglary, conspiracy, and armed robbery. He was represented by counsel at his trial before Judge Carroll and a jury and was found guilty on all charges. He was sentenced on bill 2212 for armed robbery, to imprisonment in the Eastern State Penitentiary for a term of not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years. The evidence was that this relator with a companion entered a bank in Philadelphia, drew a gun and announced that a holdup was in progress. He was apprehended by a police officer who entered the bank shortly thereafter.. Appellant neither sought a new trial nor took an appeal from his conviction and the judgment of sentence. Instead he filed a petition in the present proceeding for habeas corpus. The writ was awarded but after hearing in open court at which the relator testified in his own behalf Judge Waters dismissed Ms petition ánd remanded him to custody.

[256]*256There is no merit in any of appellant’s contentions. He was charged with armed robbery, and it is unimportant, especially since he didn’t seek a new trial or take an appeal, that the evidence may have proved an attempt to commit the offense and no more. The maximum sentence for armed robbery is twenty years. Section 705 of the Act of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, 18 PS §4705. The penalty for attempt is the same as for the completed offense, under §1107 of the Act, 18 PS §5107. In any view therefore he has not been prejudiced. So also appellant cannot question the sufficiency of the evidence or the adequacy of the court’s charge in this proceeding. Habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Com. ex rel. Marelia v. Burke, 366 Pa. 124, 75 A. 2d 593.

Order affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Relator was tried on April 19, 1955, in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County on four bills of indictment charging- carrying a • concealed weapon, burglary, conspiracy, and armed robbery. He was represented by counsel at his trial before Judge Carroll and a jury and was found guilty on all charges. He was sentenced on bill 2212 for armed robbery, to imprisonment in the Eastern State Penitentiary for a term of not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years. The evidence was that this relator with a companion entered a bank in Philadelphia, drew a gun and announced that a holdup was in progress. He was apprehended by a police officer who entered the bank shortly thereafter.. Appellant neither sought a new trial nor took an appeal from his conviction and the judgment of sentence. Instead he filed a petition in the present proceeding for habeas corpus. The writ was awarded but after hearing in open court at which the relator testified in his own behalf Judge Waters dismissed Ms petition ánd remanded him to custody.

[256]*256There is no merit in any of appellant’s contentions. He was charged with armed robbery, and it is unimportant, especially since he didn’t seek a new trial or take an appeal, that the evidence may have proved an attempt to commit the offense and no more. The maximum sentence for armed robbery is twenty years. Section 705 of the Act of June 24, 1939, P. L. 872, 18 PS §4705. The penalty for attempt is the same as for the completed offense, under §1107 of the Act, 18 PS §5107. In any view therefore he has not been prejudiced. So also appellant cannot question the sufficiency of the evidence or the adequacy of the court’s charge in this proceeding. Habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. Com. ex rel. Marelia v. Burke, 366 Pa. 124, 75 A. 2d 593.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.2d 525, 182 Pa. Super. 254, 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-gobert-v-myers-pasuperct-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack