Com. ex rel. Johnson v. Johnson

Full title: Commonwealth ex rel. Johnson, Appellant, v. Johnson

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jun 15, 1972

221 Pa. Super. 304 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1972)

292 A.2d 456

Opinion

March 20, 1972.

June 15, 1972.

Criminal Law — Trial — Speedy trial — Issue of right to a speedy trial beyond limited scope of inquiry permissible in an extradition proceeding in the asylum state — Contention by defendant that he was not taken before a magistrate with all practicable speed.

1. The issue of defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial is beyond the limited scope of inquiry permissible in an extradition proceeding in the asylum state; it can be raised only in the demanding state.

2. In this case, in which it appeared that defendant who had been continued in custody at the expiration of a prison sentence on the authority of a detainer from another state, was given a hearing within one week after final approval of his parole plan, it was Held that his complaint that he was not taken before a magistrate with all practicable speed was without merit.

Submitted March 20, 1972.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, CERCONE, and PACKEL, JJ.

Appeal, No. 145, Oct. T., 1972, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, No. 71-11758, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. John Wesley Johnson v. Robert L. Johnson, Warden. Judgment affirmed.

Habeas corpus. Before TREDINNICK, J.

Order entered dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus. Relator appealed.

John C. Butera and Butera and Detwiler, for appellant.

Stewart J. Greenleaf, Assistant District Attorney, William T. Nicholas, First Assistant District Attorney, and Milton O. Moss, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, June 15, 1972:

At the expiration of appellant's Pennsylvania prison sentence he was continued in custody on the authority of an outstanding South Carolina detainer. He first complains that he was not taken before a magistrate with all practicable speed. The record shows, however, that he was given a hearing within one week after final approval of his parole plan. Cf. Commonwealth v. McCaine, 218 Pa. Super. 274, 275 A.2d 867 (1971) (63 day delay prior to hearing). Second, appellant asserts his constitutional right to a speedy trial. This issue is beyond the limited scope of inquiry permissible in an extradition proceeding in an asylum state and, therefore, can be raised only in the demanding state.

Judgment affirmed.