From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Com. ex rel. Rogers v. Claudy

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 17, 1952
90 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952)

Opinion

April 17, 1952.

July 17, 1952.

Criminal law — Habeas corpus — Mental illness of relator — Transfer to another institution for psychiatric treatment — Hearing — Rule to show cause.

1. In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which relator attributed his criminal propensities to the fact that he was a chronic alcoholic and indicated that he was mentally and emotionally ill, and in which relator did not aver unlawful detention nor claim that he was entitled to be discharged or released, but requested vacation of his sentence and transfer to some other institution where he could receive psychiatric treatment, it was Held that habeas corpus was not a remedy for the matters of which relator complained.

2. Where a petition for a writ of habeas corpus does not contain allegations which make out a prima facie case for allowing the writ, no hearing on the petition is necessary, and the issuance of a rule to show cause is not required.

Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS, ARNOLD and GUNTHER, JJ.

Appeal, No. 68, April T., 1952, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, Feb. T., 1952, No. 198, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Joseph Rogers v. Dr. J.W. Claudy, Warden, Western State Penitentiary. Order affirmed.

Habeas corpus proceeding.

Order entered refusing petition, opinion by EVANS, P.J. Relator appealed.

Russell M. Orcutt and Joseph Rogers, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

Damian McLaughlin, District Attorney and Lindley R. McClelland, Assistant District Attorney for appellee, submitted a brief.


Submitted April 17, 1952.


The Court of Common Pleas of Erie County dismissed the petition of Joseph Rogers for writ of habeas corpus, and he has appealed. The relator stated in his petition filed December 31, 1951, that he was not asking the court for his freedom, but was requesting vacation of his sentence and transfer to some other institution where he could receive psychiatric treatment. Relator attributed his criminal propensities to the fact that he is a chronic alcoholic. Except for short intervals, he has been confined in various institutions since 1934. On September 10, 1951, relator, appearing with counsel, entered a plea of guilty to a charge of larceny, and he was sentenced by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Erie County to the Western State Penitentiary for a term of not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years. He indicates that he is mentally and emotionally ill, and that, due to lack of control, when he again gains his freedom, he would soon be recommitted to jail.

Relator's petition avers no unlawful detention, and he does not claim that he is entitled to be discharged or released. The present habeas corpus proceeding does not afford relator with a remedy for the matters of which he complains. See Com. ex rel. Biglow v. Ashe, 348 Pa. 409, 35 A.2d 340; Com. ex rel. Lieberman v. Burke, 158 Pa. Super. 207, 44 A.2d 597. In the absence of any allegations in the petition which make out a prima facie case for allowing a writ of habeas corpus, no hearing on the petition was necessary, and the issuance of a rule to show cause was not required. Com. ex rel. De Poe v. Ashe, 167 Pa. Super. 23, 74 A.2d 767. See Act of May 25, 1951, P. L. 415, 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 1901 et seq.

Relator's condition may warrant the attention of the penitentiary authorities or justify other appropriate action (see Mental Health Act of 1951, as amended, Nos. 141, 581, 50 P. S. § 1071 et seq.), but relief is not available in this proceeding.

Order is affirmed.


Summaries of

Com. ex rel. Rogers v. Claudy

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 17, 1952
90 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952)
Case details for

Com. ex rel. Rogers v. Claudy

Case Details

Full title:Commonwealth ex rel. Rogers, Appellant, v. Claudy

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 17, 1952

Citations

90 A.2d 382 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952)
90 A.2d 382

Citing Cases

Commonwealth v. Eades

A rule to show cause and hearing are not required where Appellant's allegations are fully refuted by the…

Commonwealth ex rel. Tokarchik v. Claudy

Com. exrel. Wolcott v. Burke, 173 Pa. Super. 473, 98 A.2d 206. No hearing was necessary since the allegations…