Commonwealth ex rel. Statti v. Coen

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth ex rel. Statti v. Coen

82 A.2d 251, 368 Pa. 226, 1951 Pa. LEXIS 466

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 27, 1951

DocketDocket No. 1747

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.2d 251 (Commonwealth ex rel. Statti v. Coen) 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.

Bluebook

Commonwealth ex rel. Statti v. Coen, 82 A.2d 251, 368 Pa. 226, 1951 Pa. LEXIS 466 (Pa. 1951).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones,

The question involved on this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the same as in Commonwealth ex rel. Holly v. Ashe, at p. 211 ante. The petitioner sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Superior Court which certified the petition to this court in order that it might be considered and passed upon along with the Holly case. Up to and including the sentencing of the relator, the facts of the present case are not materially distinguishable from the facts of the Holly case. The subsequent difference between the two cases is of no pertinency to the question raised.

Statti was tried on June 15, 1949, at the June term of the Court of Oyer and Terminer and Quarter Sessions of Lawrence County on indictments charging him, respectively, with felonies and misdemeanors. He was found guilty on the same day on the misdemeanor charges only. He filed a motion for a new trial which, after argument thereon before the court en banc, was refused on November 25,1949, which was in the September term of the court. During all of this time Statti was at large on bail. On November 26, 1949, the district attorney notified the defendant’s attorneys to produce him in court for sentence on December 7, 1949, which was the first day of the succeeding (December) term. The defendant appeared at that time and was sentenced. He appealed to the Superior Court from the judgment of sentence, seeking a new trial on the ground [228]*228that the trial court had committed reversible error. He did not then contend that the sentence was void because it had been imposed at a term subsequent to the term of conviction. However, that fact is of no present importance, certainly not in the relator’s favor. The Superior Court overruled the appellant’s assignments and affirmed the judgment: see Commonwealth v. Statti, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 577, 585, 73 A. 2d 688.

The present petition is based solely on the action of the Superior Court in Commonwealth ex rel. Holly v. Ashe, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 599, 74 A. 2d 182, which we have today reversed: see p. 211 ante. What we there said is equally dispositive of this petition which is accordingly denied.

Writ refused.

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

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones,

The question involved on this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the same as in Commonwealth ex rel. Holly v. Ashe, at p. 211 ante. The petitioner sought to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Superior Court which certified the petition to this court in order that it might be considered and passed upon along with the Holly case. Up to and including the sentencing of the relator, the facts of the present case are not materially distinguishable from the facts of the Holly case. The subsequent difference between the two cases is of no pertinency to the question raised.

Statti was tried on June 15, 1949, at the June term of the Court of Oyer and Terminer and Quarter Sessions of Lawrence County on indictments charging him, respectively, with felonies and misdemeanors. He was found guilty on the same day on the misdemeanor charges only. He filed a motion for a new trial which, after argument thereon before the court en banc, was refused on November 25,1949, which was in the September term of the court. During all of this time Statti was at large on bail. On November 26, 1949, the district attorney notified the defendant’s attorneys to produce him in court for sentence on December 7, 1949, which was the first day of the succeeding (December) term. The defendant appeared at that time and was sentenced. He appealed to the Superior Court from the judgment of sentence, seeking a new trial on the ground [228]*228that the trial court had committed reversible error. He did not then contend that the sentence was void because it had been imposed at a term subsequent to the term of conviction. However, that fact is of no present importance, certainly not in the relator’s favor. The Superior Court overruled the appellant’s assignments and affirmed the judgment: see Commonwealth v. Statti, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 577, 585, 73 A. 2d 688.

The present petition is based solely on the action of the Superior Court in Commonwealth ex rel. Holly v. Ashe, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 599, 74 A. 2d 182, which we have today reversed: see p. 211 ante. What we there said is equally dispositive of this petition which is accordingly denied.

Writ refused.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.2d 251, 368 Pa. 226, 1951 Pa. LEXIS 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-ex-rel-statti-v-coen-pa-1951.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack