Appeal, No. 39, April T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1955, No. 3273, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. William Gaurich v. L. C. Keenan, Superintendent, Allegheny County Workhouse. Order affirmed.
William Gaurich, appellant, in propria persona.
Edward C. Boyle, District Attorney, Earle T. Adair, First Assistant District Attorney, and William Claney Smith, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.
[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 620]
This is an appeal from the refusal of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County to grant the writ of habeas corpus. At the outset, we wish to point out that appellant, William Gaurich, violated Rule 43 of this court in failing to serve notice of his appeal on the judge who entered the order. This practice is not
[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 621]
to be condoned and, for this reason alone, the appeal should be dismissed. However, we shall consider the case on its merits as a repeated guide and as a deterrent for filing petitions of like nature.
Appellant was convicted at No. 41 February Sessions, 1954, in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County of armed robbery and receiving stolen goods. At Nos. 206 and 207 February Sessions, 1954, in the Court of Quarter Sessions, he was convicted of assault with intent to kill. Sentence on the first charge was for a term of not less than 4 years nor more than 8 years in the Allegheny County Workhouse; sentence on the latter two charges were suspended by reason of the first sentence imposed. At the trial, appellant was represented by counsel. No appeal was taken from the conviction and sentence imposed.
The records disclose that the arrest on these charges was made on December 30, 1953 on information received and previously filed and that, on the same day, preliminary hearing was waived both by appellant and his co-defendant. Upon failure to post bail, appellant was lodged in the Allegheny County Jail. The informations were filed in the clerk of courts office on January 6, 1954 and true bills were returned by the February grand jury.
Appellant's contentions here are as follows: (1) That where a rule to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue is entered and hearing conducted thereon, it is a violation of his constitutional rights not to be produced for such hearing; (2) that the indictments, trial and sentence were invalid because he was not given a preliminary hearing; (3) that the information was signed on information received.
Both appellate courts of this Commonwealth have held repeatedly that an application for a writ of habeas corpus is not a ...