Commonwealth ex rel. Jones v. Myers

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Jones v. Myers

154 A.2d 318, 190 Pa. Super. 340

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 16, 1959

DocketAppeal, No. 189

StatusPublished

This text of 154 A.2d 318 (Commonwealth ex rel. Jones 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. Jones v. Myers, 154 A.2d 318, 190 Pa. Super. 340 (Pa. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appellant, as defendant in the court below, was charged jointly with another with possessing and dispensing a narcotic drug to-wit: marihuana, in violation of §4 of the-Act of July 11, 1917, P. L. 758, 35 PS §854. Both were convicted and appellant is now serving the sentence imposed, in a penal institution.

In this appeal from the refusal of the lower court to grant a hearing on his petition for habeas corpus, the appellant’s principal complaint is that the Commonwealth’s testimony at his trial did not support the conviction because of the Commonwealth’s failure “to specify the drug content or to establish true chemical analysis” of the drug possessed and dispensed by him.. If error, this was a matter to be rectified on appeal, and since a writ of habeas corpus cannot be made the [342]*342substitute for an appeal no hearing was required in the court below. Com. ex rel. Gaurich v. Keenan, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 619, and cases cited, p. 622, 124 A. 2d 144. Cf. Com. ex rel. Bishop v. Maroney, 382 Pa. 324, 114 A. 2d 906. We find no merit in the other contentions of appellant that there was a denial of due process in the court below.

Order affirmed.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appellant, as defendant in the court below, was charged jointly with another with possessing and dispensing a narcotic drug to-wit: marihuana, in violation of §4 of the-Act of July 11, 1917, P. L. 758, 35 PS §854. Both were convicted and appellant is now serving the sentence imposed, in a penal institution.

In this appeal from the refusal of the lower court to grant a hearing on his petition for habeas corpus, the appellant’s principal complaint is that the Commonwealth’s testimony at his trial did not support the conviction because of the Commonwealth’s failure “to specify the drug content or to establish true chemical analysis” of the drug possessed and dispensed by him.. If error, this was a matter to be rectified on appeal, and since a writ of habeas corpus cannot be made the [342]*342substitute for an appeal no hearing was required in the court below. Com. ex rel. Gaurich v. Keenan, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 619, and cases cited, p. 622, 124 A. 2d 144. Cf. Com. ex rel. Bishop v. Maroney, 382 Pa. 324, 114 A. 2d 906. We find no merit in the other contentions of appellant that there was a denial of due process in the court below.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.2d 318, 190 Pa. Super. 340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-jones-v-myers-pasuperct-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack