Opinion
April 12, 1956.
July 17, 1956.
Criminal law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Alleged trial errors.
1. Alleged trial errors are not the subject of relief in a habeas corpus proceeding.
2. In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that relator, who had not appealed from the sentence following his conviction of burglary, complained that a statement or confession made by him was forged by the prosecution, that the specific intent necessary for the crime of burglary was lacking, and that trial counsel failed to bring to the attention of the trial court an apparent conflict in the testimony, it was Held that the petition was properly dismissed.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and CARR, JJ.
Appeal, No. 40, April T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, Habeas Corpus Docket No. 1275, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. William B. Lancaster v. Frank C. Johnston, Warden, Western State Penitentiary. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered refusing writ, opinion by MORROW, J. Relator appealed.
William B. Lancaster, appellant, in propria persona.
Joseph E. Kovach, District Attorney, and David E. Cohen, First Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
CARR, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Submitted April 12, 1956.
On September 9, 1949 relator, William B. Lancaster, was tried and convicted in Fayette County under an indictment charging him with burglary, and a sentence of not less than one year and four months to five years to the Western State Penitentiary was imposed. After serving his minimum sentence, relator was paroled and, while on parole, he was charged with and convicted of counterfeiting. Having served his sentence in the Federal Penitentiary at Lewisburg, he was returned to the Western State Penitentiary by the State Board of Parole for parole violation and to serve the remainder of his sentence.
No appeal was taken from his conviction and sentence; instead, relator-appellant filed two previous petitions for writ of habeas corpus which were dismissed. No appeals were taken from those adjudications. In his present petition (No. 3) appellant complains of alleged trial errors and seeks a re-examination of facts which were passed upon by the jury. Specifically, he complains that a statement or confession made by him was forged by the prosecution; that the specific intent necessary for the crime of burglary was lacking, and that trial counsel failed to bring to the attention of the trial court an apparent conflict in the testimony. The petition was docketed and properly dismissed without hearing.
This court has repeatedly held that alleged trial errors are not the subject of relief in a habeas corpus proceeding. Commonwealth ex rel. DeSimone v. Maroney, 179 Pa. Super. 300, 116 A.2d 747; Commonwealth ex rel. Tokarchik v. Claudy, 174 Pa. Super. 509, 102 A.2d 207; Commonwealth ex rel. Lepera v. Burke, 173 Pa. Super. 627, 98 A.2d 408. Appellant took the stand in his own behalf and testified at his trial. Any conflict in the testimony had to be resolved by the jury, and the omission of counsel to call such conflicts to the attention of the trial court affords no basis for relief by habeas corpus. The unwarranted attack on trial counsel's lack of diligence or competence, even if proved, would not afford a basis for issuance of the writ: Commonwealth ex rel. Darcy v. Claudy, 367 Pa. 130, 79 A.2d 785 (cert. den. 342 U.S. 837, 72 S. Ct. 61); U.S. ex rel. Darcy v. Handy, 203 F.2d 407, 426.
Order dismissing petition affirmed.
CARR, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.