Opinion
December 12, 1962.
March 19, 1963.
Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Substitute for appeal — Aggravated robbery — Absence of offensive weapon or instrument — Robbery committed by two or more culprits and with violence — Sufficiency of evidence.
1. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal.
2. In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that defendant, who was indicted with two others for aggravated robbery, adjudged guilty and sentenced, contended that the material element of aggravated robbery was proof of an offensive weapon or instrument, and, also, that the robbery was not proved; and that the court below, finding that the robbery was committed (a) in company with two other other defendants, and (b) that violence was done to the victim, involving two of the three culpable methods of criminality under the pertinent section of The Penal Code, and that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the robbery was committed, dismissed the petition; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 429, Oct. T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1962, No. 3884, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Pedro Montanez v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 29 Pa. D. C. 2d 383.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by SLOANE, P.J. Relator appealed.
Pedro Montanez, appellant, in propria persona.
Louis F. McCabe and Arlen Specter, Assistant District Attorneys, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, and James C. Crumlish, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted December 12, 1962.
It has been held repeatedly that habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal. Commonwealth ex rel. Coffman v. Keenan, 198 Pa. Super. 80, 182 A.2d 288. Nevertheless, we have considered the matters raised by appellant and conclude that they have been properly disposed of by the lower court. Therefore we affirm the order of the Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County on the opinion of President Judge SLOANE, reported at 29 Pa. D. C.2d 383.