Opinion
November 13, 1962.
December 12, 1962.
Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Sentence — Alleged inaccurate record of prior convictions before sentencing judge.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that petitioner alleged that his sentence was illegal because the record of his prior convictions presented to the trial judge by the district attorney at the time of his sentencing was inaccurate, and that the court below, holding that the petition and the record upon which it was based failed to show any ground justifying the issuance of a writ or rule to show cause, dismissed the petition, it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 185, April T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Erie County, May T., 1962, No. 79, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Richard Thompson v. James F. Maroney, Warden. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by ROBERTS, P.J., specially presiding. Relator appealed.
Richard Thompson, appellant, in propria persona.
Richard V. Scarpitti, Assistant District Attorney, and Herbert J. Johnson, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted November 13, 1962.
The petitioner in this habeas corpus case alleges that his sentence of 4 to 15 years in a state correctional institution for burglary is illegal because the record of his prior convictions presented to the trial judge by the district attorney at the time of his sentencing was inaccurate. The prisoner states in his petition that he denied the alleged convictions at the time they were presented to the sentencing judge.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus was considered by President Judge SAMUEL J. ROBERTS, specially presiding, now a justice-elect of the Supreme Court, who was also the sentencing judge. He entered an order dismissing the petition, stating his reasons therefore as follows: "We have before us relator's third petition dated February 12, 1962 for a writ of habeas corpus and the Commonwealth's answer thereto. After careful consideration of the petition and answer and review of the record, we are of the opinion that relator's petition and the record upon which it is based fail to show any ground whatsoever justifying the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, or a rule to show cause thereon. Our examination of the record fails to reveal any denial or infringement of petitioner's rights."
Order affirmed.