Opinion
March 19, 1957.
April 9, 1957.
Criminal law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Contentions previously decided on appeal and in prior petition — Trial error.
1. An order dismissing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed where it appeared that relator's contentions had been decided adversely to his position on appeal from sentence on a charge of robbery, and, also, that these contentions had been advanced in relator's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, from the dismissal of which he had taken no appeal.
2. Alleged trial errors cannot be considered in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 49, Oct. T., 1957, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1956, No. 1644, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Jesse Barry Pierce v. Frank G. Martin, Acting Warden. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus proceeding.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by CARROLL, J. Relator appealed.
Jesse B. Pierce, appellant, in propria persona.
Thomas M. Reed and Lawrence M. Aglow, Assistant District Attorneys, James N. Lafferty, First Assistant District Attorney, and Victor H. Blanc, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted March 19, 1957.
This is an appeal from the dismissal of appellant's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The factual situation is set forth in our opinion, filed July 21, 1955, affirming appellant's conviction and sentence on a charge of robbery. See Commonwealth v. Walker et al., 178 Pa. Super. 522, 116 A.2d 230, allocatur refused, 178 Pa. Super. XXIX. The contentions which appellant here attempts to raise were discussed and decided adversely to his position in our original opinion. Moreover, they were advanced in appellant's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, from the dismissal of which he took no appeal, and involve alleged trial errors which cannot be considered in a habeas corpus proceeding. See Commonwealth ex rel. Colwell v. Myers, 182 Pa. Super. 256, 126 A.2d 513. Further discussion is unnecessary.
The order of the court below is affirmed.