Commonwealth v. Schroeck

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Schroeck

417 A.2d 702, 273 Pa. Super. 386, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1890

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 4, 1980

Docket537

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 417 A.2d 702 (Commonwealth v. Schroeck) 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 v. Schroeck, 417 A.2d 702, 273 Pa. Super. 386, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1890 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

WIEAND, Judge:

George W. Schroeck was bound over for court on charges of aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another *388 person. He filed in the court below a petition to quash the magistrate’s transcript, alleging insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing. The lower court dismissed the petition, and Schroeck appealed to this Court. We do not reach the merits of the issue raised by appellant. The order appealed from was interlocutory, and the appeal, therefore, must be quashed.

Although the petition filed by appellant was styled a petition to quash the magistrate’s transcript, it is apparent that the relief sought was a discharge and dismissal of criminal charges. Such relief is more properly pursued by a petition for habeas corpus. See Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17, 23, 331 A.2d 205, 209 (1975); Commonwealth v. Gordon, 254 Pa.Super. 267, 272, 385 A.2d 1013, 1015 (1978).

As a general rule, an order denying a pre-trial petition for habeas corpus is interlocutory. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, statutory authorization, or jurisdictional challenge, an order denying an application for discharge prior to trial, particularly where it is based upon the alleged insufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case before the magistrate, is unappealable. Commonwealth ex rel. Austin v. Hendrick, 440 Pa. 236, 269 A.2d 750 (1970). See also: Commonwealth ex rel. Riggins v. Supt. of Philadelphia Prisons, 438 Pa. 160, 263 A.2d 754 (1970) and Commonwealth v. Lindsley, 241 Pa.Super. 522, 366 A.2d 310 (1976).

The instant case presents neither exceptional circumstances nor jurisdictional issue neither is there statutory authorization for an appeal from the interlocutory order entered herein. The appeal, therefore, must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.

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

WIEAND, Judge:

George W. Schroeck was bound over for court on charges of aggravated assault and recklessly endangering another *388 person. He filed in the court below a petition to quash the magistrate’s transcript, alleging insufficient evidence at the preliminary hearing. The lower court dismissed the petition, and Schroeck appealed to this Court. We do not reach the merits of the issue raised by appellant. The order appealed from was interlocutory, and the appeal, therefore, must be quashed.

Although the petition filed by appellant was styled a petition to quash the magistrate’s transcript, it is apparent that the relief sought was a discharge and dismissal of criminal charges. Such relief is more properly pursued by a petition for habeas corpus. See Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17, 23, 331 A.2d 205, 209 (1975); Commonwealth v. Gordon, 254 Pa.Super. 267, 272, 385 A.2d 1013, 1015 (1978).

As a general rule, an order denying a pre-trial petition for habeas corpus is interlocutory. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, statutory authorization, or jurisdictional challenge, an order denying an application for discharge prior to trial, particularly where it is based upon the alleged insufficiency of evidence to establish a prima facie case before the magistrate, is unappealable. Commonwealth ex rel. Austin v. Hendrick, 440 Pa. 236, 269 A.2d 750 (1970). See also: Commonwealth ex rel. Riggins v. Supt. of Philadelphia Prisons, 438 Pa. 160, 263 A.2d 754 (1970) and Commonwealth v. Lindsley, 241 Pa.Super. 522, 366 A.2d 310 (1976).

The instant case presents neither exceptional circumstances nor jurisdictional issue neither is there statutory authorization for an appeal from the interlocutory order entered herein. The appeal, therefore, must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

417 A.2d 702, 273 Pa. Super. 386, 1980 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-schroeck-pasuperct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack