Opinion
March 19, 1958.
April 16, 1958.
Criminal law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Statutory rape — Plea of guilty — Alleged excessive detention before arrest — Lawful detention on other charge — Erroneous caption on indictment — Sufficiency of averments of indictment — Improper representation by counsel — Necessity of attestation of endorsement of indictment — Adequacy of proof.
1. In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that relator, who had been sentenced upon a plea of guilty to a charge of statutory rape, alleged that he had been held in custody for an excessive period of time before arrest, during which time a confession was obtained from him by duress, but it appeared that he had been lawfully detained in the county jail for the period in question upon a charge of assault and battery upon his wife, that there was no showing in the petition of any facts amounting to duress, that he had pleaded guilty in open court three weeks after his original arrest and a week after his preliminary hearing, and that he had been represented by counsel whom he had employed, it was Held, in the circumstances, that relator's contention was without merit.
2. Where it appeared that the indictment was erroneously captioned as being in the court of quarter sessions because the case was actually in the court of oyer and terminer, but that the bill set forth immediately below the caption the term and number, indicative of the court of oyer and terminer, and that the case was recorded in the docket of the court of oyer and terminer, it was Held, in the circumstances, that relator's contention that the case was in the wrong court was without merit.
3. It was Held that the language of the indictment was sufficient to charge the offense of statutory rape; in such case, the absence of the word "rape" was not material.
4. Relator's contention that at the time he entered his plea of guilty he did not know what he was doing and was not properly advised by his counsel, who were in a conspiracy with his family to have him incarcerated, was Held to be without merit, especially where it appeared that he was represented by two attorneys of his own choice, that no objection had been made by him regarding the work of his counsel either at the time of filing his plea or during the period of almost six months that elapsed to the date of sentence, and that the petition for the writ was filed six years after the lengthy proceedings.
5. Relator's contention, that his signed endorsement on the bill of indictment whereby he waived presentation of the bill to the grand jury and entered a plea of guilty, was insufficient, in that there was no attestation of his signature, was Held to be without merit.
6. Relator's contention that the proof of the offense to which he pleaded guilty was inadequate was Held to be without merit.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 39, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, April T., 1957, No. 177, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Arthur L. Hoch v. William J. Banmiller, Warden. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 12 Pa. D. C. 2d 65.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered denying writ and dismissing petition, opinion by DEPUY, P.J. Relator appealed.
Arthur L. Hoch, appellant, in propria persona.
George C. Eppinger, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted March 19, 1958.
The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge DEPUY, as reported in 12 Pa. D. C. 2d 65.