Commonwealth v. Wright

17 A. 620, 126 Pa. 464, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 899
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 13, 1889
DocketNo. 142
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 17 A. 620 (Commonwealth v. Wright) 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 v. Wright, 17 A. 620, 126 Pa. 464, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 899 (Pa. 1889).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This was a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner is a convict now undergoing sentence in the Western Penitentiary. The record of his trial and conviction in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Elk county, has been brought up by a writ of certiorari, from which we learn that four separate indictments were returned against him, numbered respectively 12, 18, 14 and 15 of November Sessions 1884; that as to the first indictment, No. 12, a nolle prosequi was entered by leave of court; that to No. 13 he pleaded guilty but was not sentenced; that to No. 14 he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to an imprisonment of four years; and that to No. 15 he pleaded ■ guilty and was sentenced to an imprisonment of four years, to be computed from the expiration of sentence on No. 12. The four years having now fully expired, of the sentence on No. 14, the prisoner prays for this writ of habeas corpus in order that he may be discharged from further confinement, the warden of the penitentiary refusing to discharge him.

It is very evident there was a clerical error in recording the sentence on bill No. 15. There was not, and could not have been, a sentence upon bill No. 12, as a nolle prosequi had been entered thereon. We cannot discharge a prisoner, self-convicted of high crimes, upon such a bald technicality as this. At most, it was a mere slip or misprision of the clerk of the court below in recording the sentence. We therefore decline to allow the writ of habeas corpus, but we do so without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to apply for such writ to the court of Elle county. We also order the record brought here upon the certiorari to be returned to the Court of Quarter Sessions, with leave to that court to amend its record as to justice shall be right.

Petition dismissed.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Hosendorf
257 A.2d 281 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1969)
Farriss v. Keenan
77 Pa. D. & C. 478 (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas, 1951)
People Ex Rel. Kerner v. Hunter
17 N.E.2d 29 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1938)
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Biscetti v. Leslie
139 A. 195 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1927)
Halderman's Petition
119 A. 735 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1923)
Commonwealth ex rel. Lieberum v. Lewis
98 A. 31 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1916)
Commonwealth ex rel. Fagan v. Francies
53 Pa. Super. 278 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 A. 620, 126 Pa. 464, 1889 Pa. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-wright-pa-1889.