Appeal, No. 302, Oct. T., 1960, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1959, No. 3613, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Robert Hendrickson v. Edward J. Hendrick, Superintendent. Order affirmed.
Robert Hendrickson, appellant, in propria persona.
Arlen Spector and Domenick Vitullo, Assistant District Attorneys, Paul M. Chalfin, First Assistant District Attorney, and Victor H. Blanc, District Attorney, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ.
[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 560]
Robert Hendrickson has appealed from an order of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, entered December 11, 1959, dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant was indicted in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia County on Bill No. 1676 June Sessions 1952 charging burglary, larceny, and receiving
[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 561]
stolen goods. He was tried on July 22, 1952, before President Judge SLOANE sitting without a jury. At the trial appellant was represented by counsel from the Philadelphia Voluntary Defender Association. He was found guilty of both burglary and larceny, and not guilty of receiving stolen goods. A motion for a new trial, filed by his counsel, was denied on July 31, 1952. Appellant himself thereafter filed a motion for a new trial which was denied on June 3, 1953. Subsequently, appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment nunc pro tunc which was denied on March 10, 1956. Appellant was released on parole on May 10, 1957. He was rearrested as a parole violator on June 24, 1959, and recommitted by the Parole Board to the Philadelphia County Prison where he is presently incarcerated.
Appellant is here endeavoring to attack his conviction and sentence on July 22, 1952, at No. 1676 June Sessions 1952. Other such attempts are recited in Commonwealth ex rel. Hendrickson v. Hendrick, 181 Pa. Superior Ct. 45, 122 A.2d 88, wherein we affirmed an order, entered August 12, 1955, by President Judge HAGAN, dismissing one of appellant's prior petitions. There should be added the subsequent opinion and order of Judge GRIFFITHS filed November 14, 1956, at No. 607 September Term 1956, dismissing still another of appellant's petitions. As we stated in Commonwealth ex rel. Sell v. Tees, 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 549, 117 A.2d 813, and reiterated in our former opinion involving this appellant, repetitious petitions for habeas corpus may not be employed as devices to secure appellate review of adjudicated matters. We will nevertheless briefly consider appellant's several complaints.
(1) The gravamen of appellant's first contention is that the motion of his counsel for a new trial was argued by a ...