Opinion
March 19, 1963.
April 18, 1963.
Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Matters in petition previously disposed of in prior appeals.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that nothing new was raised in the petition that had not already been disposed of in an appeal following petitioner's conviction and sentence and in appeals following dismissal of a prior petition for a writ of habeas corpus, it was Held that the court below properly dismissed the instant petition.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 54, Oct. T., 1963, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Sept. T., 1962, No. 623, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Henry Sliva v. A.T. Rundle, Warden. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by SWENEY, P.J. Relator appealed.
Henry Sliva, appellant, in propria persona.
John R. Graham, Assistant District Attorney, and Jacques H. Fox, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted March 19, 1963.
Henry Sliva has appealed from an order of the court below refusing a writ of habeas corpus without hearing.
The appellant was convicted by a court and jury on indictments charging burglary and robbery. After his conviction and sentence the appellant took an appeal to this Court, which was disposed of by an opinion filed November 16, 1960, at 193 Pa. Super. 490, 165 A.2d 689. Thereafter the appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the court below and after dismissal of the petition an appeal was taken to this Court, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court, all of which dismissed the appeal.
Nothing new is raised in the present petition for writ of habeas corpus that has not already been disposed of in the above mentioned appeals. We repeat with approval what was said by the court below in its opinion dismissing the last petition for writ of habeas corpus: "This relator has had every consideration; never once has he denied guilt but he continues to raise the same technical objections which have no basis in law."
Order affirmed.