Opinion
October 7, 1957.
November 12, 1957.
Criminal law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Docket entry reciting commitment in conflict with recorded sentence — Correction of faulty record — Commission of crime while on parole — Other sentences to be served — Parole as matter of grace.
1. In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that relator pleaded guilty and was sentenced on five indictments; that the docket of the clerk of quarter sessions in each of the last four indictments, after stating the term of imprisonment, recited ". . . to run concurrent with the other sentences and stand committed until this sentence is complied with"; that, subsequently, there appeared an entry on the docket of one of the last four indictments, with no indication upon what authority it was made, reciting ". . . corrected commitment paper issued to the effect that the sentence in this case is to follow the sentence" on the first indictment "and is not to be concurrent with any other sentence"; it was Held that, to the extent that the later docket entry was not in conformity with the recorded sentence, it was a nullity and could not affect the sentences as recorded.
2. Where it further appeared that no move had been made by the district attorney to modify the record of the indictment to which the later docket entry referred, to make the record conform to what might have been the pronouncement of the court; that there were three other concurrent sentences, each with a minimum and a maximum similar to that on the indictment in question, that would have to be served and as to which there was no attempt at modification; and that the court below of its own motion directed the necessary corrections upon the respective dockets, and then denied the application for a writ; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
3. While the court may at any time correct a commitment to have it conform to law or to the sentence, it cannot issue a commitment that is in conflict with the sentence as it is recorded.
4. Parole, technical or otherwise, is a matter of grace and not of right.
5. The proper remedy for a faulty record is a motion to correct the docket entries and not a writ of habeas corpus.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 327, Oct. T., 1957, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, June T., 1957, No. 9, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Michael J. Senkovich v. William J. Banmiller, Warden. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered discharging rule and denying writ, opinion by HENNINGER, P.J. Relator appealed.
Michael J. Senkovich, appellant, in propria persona.
Robert Lesko, Assistant District Attorney, and Paul A. McGinley, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted October 7, 1957.
The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge JAMES F. HENNINGER, as reported in 9 Pa. D. C.2d 750.