Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. ROGOZINSKI v. RUSSELL (09/27/66)

decided: September 27, 1966.

COMMONWEALTH EX REL. ROGOZINSKI, APPELLANT,
v.
RUSSELL



Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas of York County, Jan. T., 1966, No. 34, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Lawrence Rogozinski v. Harry E. Russell, Superintendent.

COUNSEL

Lawrence Rogozinski, appellant, in propria persona.

John T. Miller, First Assistant District Attorney, and John F. Rauhauser, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice Jones.

Author: Jones

[ 422 Pa. Page 537]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus.

On August 25, 1955, Lawrence Rogozinski was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced

[ 422 Pa. Page 538]

    to life imprisonment. On appeal to this Court, we affirmed the judgment of sentence: Commonwealth v. Rogozinski, 387 Pa. 399, 128 A.2d 28.

On July 12, 1965, Rogozinski petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of York County for a writ of habeas corpus. That court appointed counsel for Rogozinski and the matter was heard before the court on briefs and oral argument.*fn1 The court, on August 23, 1965, dismissed the petition (Commonwealth ex rel. Rogozinski v. Russell, 79 York 115) and no appeal was taken from that order.

Approximately two months later, Rogozinski filed the instant petition. Counsel was appointed for Rogozinski, the Commonwealth answered the petition and, after the oral arguments of counsel and the submission of briefs, the court refused to direct issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. From its order Rogozinski now appeals.

Rogozinski initially claims he was entitled to be heard by way of taking testimony. An examination of the petition and answer indicates that no issues of fact but simply questions of law were raised. In such posture a hearing would be unwarranted: Commonwealth ex rel. Hilberry v. Maroney, 417 Pa. 534, 540, 207 A.2d 794; Commonwealth ex rel. Wilson v. Rundle, 412 Pa. 109, 111, 194 A.2d 143.

Rogozinski, alleging a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically makes the following allegations: (1) at trial the Commonwealth placed in evidence certain statements which he had made at a time (a) when, after several requests, he had been refused and lacked the assistance of counsel, (b) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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