From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Com. ex rel. Greene v. Banmiller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 13, 1962
181 A.2d 853 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1962)

Opinion

April 12, 1962.

June 13, 1962.

Appeals — Timeliness — Habeas corpus — Filing of identical petition at same number and term as those of prior petition — Extension of time for appeal — Failure to perfect appeal.

1. The filing of an identical petition for a writ of habeas corpus at the same number and term as those of a prior petition may not be used as a device to accomplish an extension of time allowed for appealing dismissal of the first petition.

2. The failure to perfect an appeal within the time allowed by law is a defect in the proceedings, of which the appellate court must take notice, even on its own motion.

Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.

Appeal, No. 72, April T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1961, No. 280, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Norman F. Greene v. William J. Banmiller, Warden. Appeal quashed.

Habeas corpus.

Order entered denying petition, opinion by SOFFEL, J. Relator appealed.

Norman Greene, appellant, in propria persona.

William Claney Smith, Assistant District Attorney, and Edward C. Boyle, District Attorney, for appellee.


Submitted April 12, 1962.


At No. 280 July Term, 1961, of the lower court, relator filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus which was dismissed on April 7, 1961. Relator appealed to this Court from the order of dismissal but discontinued his appeal on September 22, 1961. Subsequently he presented an identical petition to the court below at the same number and term, which was dismissed on October 11, 1961. This appeal followed.

The filing of an identical petition at the same number and term may not be used as a device to accomplish an extension of the time allowed for appealing the April 7, 1961 order. Commonwealth ex rel. Hernandez v. Price, 385 Pa. 44, 122 A.2d 206. The failure to perfect an appeal within the time allowed by law is a defect in the proceedings of which the Appellate Court must take notice, even on its own motion. Department of Highways v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 189 Pa. Super. 111, 149 A.2d 552. This appeal, having been filed too late, must be quashed.

Appeal quashed.


Summaries of

Com. ex rel. Greene v. Banmiller

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jun 13, 1962
181 A.2d 853 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1962)
Case details for

Com. ex rel. Greene v. Banmiller

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth ex rel. Greene, Appellant, v. Banmiller

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 13, 1962

Citations

181 A.2d 853 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1962)
181 A.2d 853

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. McKnight

The rule is well settled that, in the absence of an allegation of fraud or its equivalent, the common law…

Commonwealth v. Yorktowne Paper Mills, Inc.

Accordingly, failure to take an appeal within the time allowed by statute is a defect which may not be…