Opinion
October 10, 1957.
November 12, 1957.
Criminal law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Alleged trial errors — Repetitious petitions — Averments not constituting denial of due process.
1. In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that relator had filed numerous petitions for writ of habeas corpus and twice before had unsuccessfully appealed from the dismissal of his petitions; and that relator claimed that he had been improperly cross-examined by the district attorney at his trial and that during the conduct of his trial he had received prejudicial newspaper publicity, and that these grounds had not been considered by the court in his previous applications for release; it was Held that the instant petition was properly dismissed without a hearing as his alleged new averments did not constitute prima facie a denial of due process.
2. Alleged trial errors are not reasons for relief in a habeas corpus proceeding.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 5, Feb. T., 1958, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County, Jan. T., 1957, No. 498, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Anthony Baerchus v. David N. Myers, Warden. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by EAGEN, J. Relator appealed.
Anthony Baerchus, appellant, in propria persona.
Ralph P. Needle, Assistant District Attorney, and Carlon M. O'Malley, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted October 10, 1957.
Relator has filed numerous petitions for writ of habeas corpus, and this is the third time that an appeal has been taken to this Court from the dismissal of his petitions. He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 27, 1950, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. After hearing, the writ was refused and no appeal was taken from the dismissal of his petition. On May 1, 1951, he filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus. From the dismissal of this petition he appealed to the Superior Court. In an extensive opinion we reviewed the record and affirmed the order of the court below. Com. ex rel. Baerchus v. Burke, 172 Pa. Super. 400, 94 A.2d 87 (allocatur refused 172 Pa. Super. xxiv, certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the United States, 345 U.S. 966, 73 S. Ct. 953, 97 L. Ed. 1385). Relator again appealed to this Court from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which order we affirmed in Com. ex rel. Baerchus v. Day, 178 Pa. Super. 455, 115 A.2d 894 (allocatur refused, 178 Pa. Super. xxix, certiorari denied by the Supreme Court of the United States).
The relator's petition, which is now before us, was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County on February 4, 1957. The petition was dismissed without a hearing. It contains the same averments set forth in his previous petitions.
However, relator now claims that, in addition to the previous averments, consideration should be given to his allegations that he was improperly cross-examined by the district attorney at his trial, that during the conduct of his trial he received prejudicial newspaper publicity, and that these grounds were not considered by the court in his previous applications for release.
If there was any merit in these allegations they constituted matters which should have been raised in the court below and then on appeal. Relator recognized in his petition that he was represented by counsel at his trial, and that no appeal was taken from the sentences imposed. Relator has had ample opportunity in his previous petitions to present any material allegations. Relator by his several petitions attempts to secure a review of adjudicated matters or the consideration of alleged trial errors. We have repeatedly said that alleged trial errors are not reasons for relief in a habeas corpus proceeding. Com. ex rel. Lancaster v. Johnston, 181 Pa. Super. 561, 124 A.2d 132. Relator's present petition was properly dismissed without a hearing as his alleged new averments did not constitute prima facie a denial of due process. See Com. ex rel. Melensky v. Maroney, 178 Pa. Super. 364, 368, 115 A.2d 924.
The order of the court below is affirmed.