Commonwealth Ex Rel. Jones v. Day

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Jones v. Day

121 A.2d 896, 181 Pa. Super. 37, 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 443

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 11, 1956

DocketAppeal, 15

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 121 A.2d 896 (Commonwealth Ex Rel. Jones v. Day) 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. Jones v. Day, 121 A.2d 896, 181 Pa. Super. 37, 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 443 (Pa. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County. On appeal from the order of the court below, relator avers that he was denied due process of law because the trial judge considered a written statement made by one of relator’s accomplices who was being tried jointly with him. The trial was before Honorable Charles Klein in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia County, sitting without a jury, on bill of indictment No. 1056, April Term, 1954, charging relator and two accomplices with armed robbery. He was sentenced on December 10, 1954, and his sentence was to be effective as of April 14, 1954.

There is no merit in relator’s contention, and the record in the trial court does not support his assertion that the statement or confession of one of his co-defendants was improperly considered against relator by *39 the trial judge. Moreover, if relator was of the opinion that the trial judge erred in admitting the alleged statement in evidence, the proper remedy would have been by appeal. At his trial relator was represented by counsel as shown by the trial record. As we said in Com. ex rel. Sharpe v. Burke, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 350, 354, 101 A. 2d 397, 399: “Both appellate courts of this Commonwealth have repeatedly and clearly stated the limitations of habeas corpus. It is not available to review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which a conviction is based, or for the correction of trial errors which could have been reviewed and corrected on appeal; it is not a substitute for an appeal or for a writ of error or for a motion for a new trial.”

“The writ of habeas corpus is a civil proceeding, and it cannot be utilized to examine every objection made and alleged error committed in the trial of a criminal case. Com. ex rel. Marelia v. Burke, 366 Pa. 124, 126, 75 A. 2d 593.” Com. ex rel. Gaito, Jr. v. Claudy, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 242, 244, 94 A. 2d 107, 108.

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,

Relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was dismissed by the Court of Common Pleas No. 3 of Philadelphia County. On appeal from the order of the court below, relator avers that he was denied due process of law because the trial judge considered a written statement made by one of relator’s accomplices who was being tried jointly with him. The trial was before Honorable Charles Klein in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Philadelphia County, sitting without a jury, on bill of indictment No. 1056, April Term, 1954, charging relator and two accomplices with armed robbery. He was sentenced on December 10, 1954, and his sentence was to be effective as of April 14, 1954.

There is no merit in relator’s contention, and the record in the trial court does not support his assertion that the statement or confession of one of his co-defendants was improperly considered against relator by *39 the trial judge. Moreover, if relator was of the opinion that the trial judge erred in admitting the alleged statement in evidence, the proper remedy would have been by appeal. At his trial relator was represented by counsel as shown by the trial record. As we said in Com. ex rel. Sharpe v. Burke, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 350, 354, 101 A. 2d 397, 399: “Both appellate courts of this Commonwealth have repeatedly and clearly stated the limitations of habeas corpus. It is not available to review the sufficiency of the evidence upon which a conviction is based, or for the correction of trial errors which could have been reviewed and corrected on appeal; it is not a substitute for an appeal or for a writ of error or for a motion for a new trial.”

“The writ of habeas corpus is a civil proceeding, and it cannot be utilized to examine every objection made and alleged error committed in the trial of a criminal case. Com. ex rel. Marelia v. Burke, 366 Pa. 124, 126, 75 A. 2d 593.” Com. ex rel. Gaito, Jr. v. Claudy, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 242, 244, 94 A. 2d 107, 108.

Order of the court below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.2d 896, 181 Pa. Super. 37, 1956 Pa. Super. LEXIS 443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-jones-v-day-pasuperct-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack