Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. WOOD v. MARONEY (12/16/65)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: December 16, 1965.

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. WOOD, APPELLANT,
v.
MARONEY

Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, March T., 1965, No. 372, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Robert Edmon Wood v. J. F. Maroney, Superintendent.

COUNSEL

Caram J. Abood, with him Green, Gibson & Abood, for appellant.

W. Thomas Malcolm, District Attorney, with him Robert C. Earley, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.

Ervin, P. J., Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, Jacobs, and Hoffman, JJ. (Flood, J., absent). Opinion by Wright, J. Montgomery, J., concurs only because the question is moot. Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J.

Author: Wright

[ 207 Pa. Super. Page 192]

Robert E. Wood has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The background of this case is summarized in our opinion affirming the dismissal of a prior habeas corpus petition. See Commonwealth ex rel. Wood v. Maroney, 199 Pa. Superior Ct. 561, 186 A.2d 864. Allocatur refused 199 Pa. Superior Ct. xxxi. Certiorari denied 374 U.S. 854, 10 L. Ed. 2d 1075, 83 S. Ct. 1922.

The order of the court below will be affirmed for two reasons. (1) In Wood's present petition the sole contention which may be raised by habeas corpus is the denial of effective representation by counsel. This contention was considered and rejected in the prior appeal. (2) As a consequence of Wood's parole he is no longer in the custody of the superintendent of the Western State Correctional Institution, wherefore the proceeding has become moot: Commonwealth ex rel. Spader v. Burke, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 289, 90 A.2d 849.

Order affirmed.

Disposition

Order affirmed.

[ 207 Pa. Super. Page 193]

Concurring Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

I concur in the result only, because it is clear to me that appellant was not denied the effective representation of counsel.

Whether habeas corpus relief should be extended to a parolee, however, is still in great doubt. See Commonwealth ex rel. Stevens v. Myers, 419 Pa. 1, 6, n. 7, 213 A.2d 613, 616n. (1965). In my opinion, we need not pass on this issue in this case.

19651216

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.