Opinion
Argued December 6, 1949.
January 5, 1950.
Criminal law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Eligibility for parole.
A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper procedure for obtaining an adjudication of the question whether or not the petitioner is eligible for parole.
Before MAXEY, C. J., STERN, STEARNE and JONES, JJ.
Original jurisdiction, No. 269, Miscellaneous Docket, No. 9. Petition for writ of habeas corpus, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Charles Sherman v. C. J. Burke, Warden, Eastern State Penitentiary. Petition denied.
Michael von Moschzisker, with him Louis Lipschitz and Thomas D. McBride, for relator.
James W. Tracey, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, with him John H. Maurer, District Attorney, for Commonwealth.
On the showing made by the petitioner, the question involved is whether he is now eligible for parole. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is not the proper procedure for obtaining an adjudication of the petitioner's alleged rights in the premises: cf. Kinsella v. Board of Trustees, 340 Pa. 497, 498, 17 A.2d 882.
Petition denied.