Opinion
September 16, 1970.
September 25, 1970.
Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Petition by prison inmates — Exhaustion of possible avenues of relief within prison administrative structure — Continued incarceration allegedly unsafe — Cruel and unusual punishment — Evidence — Findings — Release of relators.
1. In these cases, in which it appeared that relators, prison inmates, who had testified on behalf of the Commonwealth in a criminal prosecution, contended that continued imprisonment for them would be unsafe and would amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of their constitutional rights, it was Held that relators had exhausted the possible avenues of relief within the prison administrative structure and that writs of habeas corpus were properly entertained.
2. It was Held that the facts were insufficient to support the conclusion of the trial judge that there was no place in Pennsylvania in which relators could be safely incarcerated, and that it erred in releasing relators; the record was remanded for further hearings at which the Commonwealth should be given opportunity to present a plan of incarceration which would assure the safety of relators during their terms of imprisonment.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 276, 277 and 278, April T., 1970, from judgment and order of the Court of Common Pleas, Criminal Division, of Allegheny County, April T., 1970, Nos. Misc. 782, 783 and 784, in cases of Commonwealth ex rel. Robert Dourlaine et al. v. William Robinson, Warden, Allegheny County Jail and Joseph R. Brierley, Warden, Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution. Record remanded for further hearings by lower court.
Habeas corpus. Before SMITH, JR., J.
Orders entered granting petitions and directing release of relators from confinement. Defendants appealed.
Joseph Martin Gelman, Special Assistant Attorney General, Frank P. Lawley, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, and Fred Speaker, Attorney General, for appellant, submitted a brief.
Gilbert J. Helwig, and Reed, Smith, Shaw McClay, for appellees.
No oral argument was made nor brief submitted for appellees.
Submitted September 16, 1970.
This is an appeal from the granting of a habeas corpus petition. We agree with the learned trial judge that writs of habeas corpus were properly entertained in this situation. Commonwealth ex rel. Thompson v. Day, 182 Pa. Super. 644, 128 A.2d 133 (1956), cert. den., 355 U.S. 843, 78 S. Ct. 65, 2 L. Ed. 2d 52. It is our opinion that the appellees have exhausted the possible avenues of relief within the prison administrative structure. However, after a thorough review of the record and all the evidence presented, we find the facts insufficient to support the conclusion that there is no place in Pennsylvania in which the appellees could be safely incarcerated, and further find the lower court erred in releasing appellees.
We therefore remand the record for further hearings by the lower court at which the Commonwealth shall be given ample opportunity to present a plan of incarceration which will assure the safety of the appellees during their terms of imprisonment.