Commonwealth Maurice v. Smith, Warden

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth Maurice v. Smith, Warden

28 A.2d 811, 150 Pa. Super. 455, 1942 Pa. Super. LEXIS 190

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 18, 1942

Docket5 Misc. Docket 80

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A.2d 811 (Commonwealth Maurice v. Smith, Warden) 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 Maurice v. Smith, Warden, 28 A.2d 811, 150 Pa. Super. 455, 1942 Pa. Super. LEXIS 190 (Pa. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The petition for a rehearing is refused.

This petitioner on July 28, 1939, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court to No. 19 Miscellaneous Docket No. 5, which was refused on September 8, 1939.

On May 24, 1940, he filed a second petition for writ *456 of habeas corpus to No. 80 Miscellaneous Docket No. 5. We granted the writ and had a hearing which was held at Room 450 City Hall, Philadelphia, on October 28, 1940, at which time the petitioner testified in his own behalf, and Morris Passon, Harry W. Steinbrook, Assistant District Attorney Harry Felix and Judge Edwin O. Lewis, who presided at the trial, were also heard. On November 11, 1940, we ordered the writ dismissed and the relator remanded.

He then applied to our Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which, was refused on January 20, 1942, (Com. ex rel. Maurice v. Smith, Warden, 344 Pa. 60, 24 A. 2d 11), the court basing its refusal on Com. ex rel. McGlinn v. Smith, Warden, 344 Pa. 41, 24 A. 2d 1. It also approved our action on the petition filed to No. 80. In quoting from our order in that case the Supreme Court inadvertently omitted the piart of our order, italicized below. What we actually said, inter alia, was “......we find......that he knew of his right to be represented by counsel on the trial; that he did not ask for a continuance of the case; that he was asked by the assistant district attorney and the trial judge if he had counsel, or wanted counsel to represent him, and that he replied that he did not.”

Petitioner then applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which on March 30, 1942, was denied “for the reason that the court, upon examination of the papers herein submitted, finds no ground upon which writ of certiorari should be issued.” See 62 Supreme Court Reports 918, 315 U. S. 820.

The matter is closed and will not be reopened.

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

Per Curiam,

The petition for a rehearing is refused.

This petitioner on July 28, 1939, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this court to No. 19 Miscellaneous Docket No. 5, which was refused on September 8, 1939.

On May 24, 1940, he filed a second petition for writ *456 of habeas corpus to No. 80 Miscellaneous Docket No. 5. We granted the writ and had a hearing which was held at Room 450 City Hall, Philadelphia, on October 28, 1940, at which time the petitioner testified in his own behalf, and Morris Passon, Harry W. Steinbrook, Assistant District Attorney Harry Felix and Judge Edwin O. Lewis, who presided at the trial, were also heard. On November 11, 1940, we ordered the writ dismissed and the relator remanded.

He then applied to our Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, which, was refused on January 20, 1942, (Com. ex rel. Maurice v. Smith, Warden, 344 Pa. 60, 24 A. 2d 11), the court basing its refusal on Com. ex rel. McGlinn v. Smith, Warden, 344 Pa. 41, 24 A. 2d 1. It also approved our action on the petition filed to No. 80. In quoting from our order in that case the Supreme Court inadvertently omitted the piart of our order, italicized below. What we actually said, inter alia, was “......we find......that he knew of his right to be represented by counsel on the trial; that he did not ask for a continuance of the case; that he was asked by the assistant district attorney and the trial judge if he had counsel, or wanted counsel to represent him, and that he replied that he did not.”

Petitioner then applied to the Supreme Court of the United States for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, which on March 30, 1942, was denied “for the reason that the court, upon examination of the papers herein submitted, finds no ground upon which writ of certiorari should be issued.” See 62 Supreme Court Reports 918, 315 U. S. 820.

The matter is closed and will not be reopened.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.2d 811, 150 Pa. Super. 455, 1942 Pa. Super. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-maurice-v-smith-warden-pasuperct-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack