Com. ex Rel. Hargrove v. Maroney

Full title: Commonwealth ex rel. Hargrove, Appellant, v. Maroney

Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 4, 1966

215 A.2d 635 (Pa. 1966)

215 A.2d 635

Opinion

Submitted October 11, 1965.

January 4, 1966.

Criminal law — Constitutional law — Person arrested for crime — Confession — Validity — Absence of issue at trial — Waiver — Practice — Criminal procedure — Collateral attack.

Commonwealth ex rel. Blackshear v. Myers, 419 Pa. 151, and Commonwealth ex rel. Swiger v. Maroney, 420 Pa. 34, followed.

Mr. Justice ROBERTS filed a concurring opinion.

Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, EAGEN, O'BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 243, March T., 1965, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1965, No. 1725, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Morris Hargrove v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent. Order affirmed.

Habeas corpus.

Petition dismissed, order by WEAVER, P. J., specially presiding. Relator appealed.

Morris Hargrove, appellant, in propria persona.

Edwin J. Martin, Assistant District Attorney, with him Robert W. Duggan, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, January 4, 1966:

This is an appeal from an order in the court below dismissing an action of habeas corpus.

The order was correct. The reasons assigned in support of the issuance of the writ are devoid of merit. See, Commonwealth ex rel. Blackshear v. Myers, 419 Pa. 151, 213 A.2d 378 (1965), and Commonwealth ex rel. Swiger v. Maroney, 420 Pa. 34, 215 A.2d 636 (1966).

Order affirmed.

Mr. Justice COHEN took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

CONCURRING OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS:

I concur in the result on the ground that appellant's contention based on Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758 (1964), is controlled by Commonwealth v. Negri, 419 Pa. 117, 213 A.2d 670 (1965). I am at a loss to understand why the majority, having held in Negri that Escobedo is not to be given retrospective application, fails to rely on that decision. Although I dissented from that holding, it represents the present law of this Commonwealth until overruled. See Commonwealth ex rel. Corbin v. Myers, 419 Pa. 139, 144, 213 A.2d 356, 358 (1965) (concurring opinion).