- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
COM. ex rel. CLARK v. MARONEY
Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Writ as substitute for appeal — Matters that should have been raised on motion for new trial — Alleged illegal search and seizure.
1. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used to inquire into matters that should have been raised on motion for a new trial.
2. In this case, in which it appeared that relator, who had been adjudicated guilty on charges of forgery of narcotic prescriptions and sentenced, contended that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure, it was Held that the order of the court below dismissing his petition should be affirmed.
Submitted November 14, 1962.
OPINION PER CURIAM, December 12, 1962:
After a non-jury trial in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Allegheny County before Honorable DAVID H. WEISS of the Tenth Judicial District, specially presiding, relator was adjudicated as guilty on charges of forgery of narcotic prescriptions, and sentenced to terms totaling not less than six years nor more than twelve years in the Western State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh.
Relator was represented at that time by counsel of his own choice. No appeal was taken from the judgments of sentence.
Relator's present contention seems to be that he was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. His petition for writ of habeas corpus was dimissed by Judge WEISS.
Relator's complaint was a matter for defense, reviewable for possible error on appeal and not by habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used to inquire into matters that should have been raised on motion for a new trial. Com. ex rel. Stoner v. Myers, 199 Pa. Super. 341, 185 A.2d 806.
The order of the court below is affirmed.
Alert