Opinion
June 10, 1963.
September 12, 1963.
Criminal Law — Due process — Alleged illegal extradition — Regular indictment and trial.
1. A prisoner who is regularly indicted and tried under the laws of a state where the crime was committed is not deprived of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment by the manner in which he is brought from another jurisdiction.
Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Plea of guilty — Allegation that defendant was convicted of a crime he did not commit — Petition raising no question of fact — Necessity of hearing — Sentences within statutory limits — Review of court's discretionary power — Release of prisoner confined under legal sentence — Psychiatric examination — Discretion of trial judge.
2. Where a prisoner freely enters a plea of guilty under representation of counsel, his subsequent allegation that he was indicted for a crime which he did not commit is of no avail on habeas corpus.
3. Where a petition for a writ of habeas corpus raises no issues of fact, the matter may be determined on questions of law, and no hearing is necessary.
4. Where a sentence is within the statutory limits, the court's discretionary power in imposing sentence is not subject to review on habeas corpus.
5. Where a prisoner is confined under a legal sentence, he cannot obtain his release on habeas corpus.
6. The grant or refusal of a request for a psychiatric examination in connection with sentence is within the discretion of the sentencing judge.
7. The refusal of a request for a psychiatric examination is properly raised by an appeal and is not reviewable on habeas corpus, which is not a substitute for an appeal.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 119, Oct. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1962, No. 1892, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Alfred Camara v. David N. Myers, Superintendent. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by WEINROTT, J. Relator appealed.
Alfred Camara, appellant, in propria persona.
Gordon Gelfond and Arlen Specter, Assistant District Attorneys, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, and James C. Crumlish, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted June 10, 1963.
This is an appeal by relator from an order of Judge WEINROTT of the Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus without a hearing.
Relator was indicted on April 19, 1960, on seven bills of indictment, Nos. 927, 929, and 930, September Sessions, 1960, each charging burglary, larceny, and receiving stolen goods; Nos. 931, 932, and 933, each charging fraudulently making, uttering and publishing a written instrument; and No. 936, charging conspiracy. Upon arraignment on May 2, 1960, relator pleaded not guilty to all indictments. On April 29, 1960, the office of the Voluntary Defender entered appearance for relator. When the cases were called for trial on June 29, 1960, relator, being then represented by the Voluntary Defender, changed his plea to guilty on all indictments. Concurrent sentences of not less than seven years nor more than fifteen years were imposed on Bills Nos. 927, 929, and 930. Consecutive five-year periods of probation to begin at the expiration of the prison sentence were provided as to Bills Nos. 931, 932, and 933. On Bill No. 936, sentence was suspended.
Testimony taken on the pleas of guilty shows relator, with accomplices, burglarized several business establishments, including relator's place of employment, and subsequently fraudulently negotiated checks taken therefrom. Under examination by his counsel, Martin Heckscher, relator freely admitted his guilt on all charges and took the blame for involving one of his accomplices in the crimes.
Appellant asserts that his extradition from Texas was illegal. The record shows he waived extradition and voluntarily returned to Pennsylvania. In any event, "A prisoner who is regularly indicted and tried under the laws of a state where the crime was committed is not deprived of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment by the manner in which he is brought from another jurisdiction." Com. ex rel. Master v. Baldi, 166 Pa. Super. 413, 421, 72 A.2d 150, 154; Com. ex rel. Patton v. Tees, 179 Pa. Super. 605, 608, 118 A.2d 585.
Appellant's allegation that he was indicted for "a crime he did not commit" is of no avail on habeas corpus in view of his pleas of guilty freely entered under representation by counsel. Com. ex rel. Gouch v. Myers, 196 Pa. Super. 285, 288, 175 A.2d 158; Com. ex rel. Clouthier v. Maroney, 201 Pa. Super. 493, 193 A.2d 640.
The sentences were within the statutory limits, and the court's discretionary power in imposing sentence is not subject to review on habeas corpus. Com. v. Trostle, 189 Pa. Super. 200, 204, 150 A.2d 152; Com. ex rel. Kimble v. Keenan, 194 Pa. Super. 169, 174, 166 A.2d 668. Appellant's attack on the suspended sentence and consecutive five-year probationary periods to begin at the expiration of his prison term cannot be raised in the present habeas corpus proceeding. Appellant is presently confined under a legal sentence and cannot now obtain his release on habeas corpus. Com. ex rel. Salerno v. Banmiller, 189 Pa. Super. 156, 160, 149 A.2d 501; Com. ex rel. Larkins v. Keenan, 199 Pa. Super. 572, 575, 186 A.2d 852.
Finally, appellant states that the trial judge prejudiced him by not granting a pre-sentence psychiatric examination in accordance with the request of counsel. The sentencing judge indicated appellant would receive treatment "at the Eastern Penitentiary or Diagnostic Clinic." The grant or refusal of a request for a psychiatric examination in connection with sentence is within the discretion of the sentencing judge. Com. ex rel. Mulligan v. Smith, 156 Pa. Super. 469, 474, 40 A.2d 701; Com. v. Gossard, 385 Pa. 312, 318, 123 A.2d 258. In any event, such matter is properly raised by an appeal and is not reviewable on habeas corpus, which is not a substitute for an appeal. Com. ex rel. Stoner v. Myers, 199 Pa. Super. 341, 346, 185 A.2d 806. No hearing was necessary on relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus as no issues of fact were raised. Under such circumstances, the matter may be determined on questions of law. Com. ex rel. Coffman v. Keenan, 198 Pa. Super. 80, 82, 182 A.2d 288.
The order of the court below is affirmed.