dismissed at a preliminary hearing as "a result of his counsel's efforts." No facts are presented which disclose any denial of relator's constitutional right to be represented by competent counsel. On the contrary, the record shows he was represented by two competent counsel. The fact that they were unable to persuade the Judge to impose shorter terms of imprisonment does not brand them as ineffective.
(5) The alleged unconstitutional search and seizure does not afford relator grounds for granting a writ of habeas corpus upon a voluntary plea of guilty. Wallace v. Heinze, 351 F.2d 39 (9th Cir. 1965); United States ex rel. Maisenhelder v. Rundle, 349 F.2d 592, 595 (3d Cir. 1965); Thomas v. United States, 290 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1961); State of Louisiana ex rel. Davis v. Allgood, 256 F. Supp. 301 (E.D.La.1966); United States ex rel. Hazen v. Maroney, 217 F. Supp. 328 (W.D.Pa.1963). Moreover, it is futile for relator to allege that his lawyers had evidence to show that relator was innocent in the face of his voluntary pleas of guilty, intelligently and knowingly made in Open Court.
(6) This ground has been discussed and rejected first above.
(7) This allegation pertaining to his counsel's refusal to appeal from sentences imposed on pleas of guilty is without merit.
(8) Relator's complaints that he was deprived of counsel at a preliminary hearing, and that his appointed counsel failed to prosecute a writ of habeas corpus sent to the Greene County Court when relator was a prisoner in California, are without merit. In Pennsylvania a preliminary hearing is not a critical stage of the prosecution. United States ex rel. Maisenhelder v. Rundle, supra; Commonwealth ex rel. Parker v. Myers, 414 Pa. 427, 200 A.2d 770 (1964); United States ex rel. Peterson v. Russell, 266 F. Supp. 93, 94 (W.D.Pa.1967). A Pennsylvania court has no power to grant a writ of habeas corpus when the relator is in the custody of a foreign state. Commonwealth ex rel. Graham v. Graham, 367 Pa. 553, 80 A.2d 829, 833 (1951). Cf. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 68 S. Ct. 1443, 92 L. Ed. 1898 (1948); United States ex rel. Dorsch v. Hunter, 101 F. Supp. 751 (W.D.Pa.1951).
(9) It appears that relator is presently serving a penitentiary service of 4 1/2 to 9 years for prison breach; the allegation that he cannot be sent to the penitentiary for receiving stolen good is without merit, and, in any event, is not a violation of relator's constitutional rights. Cf. Opinion of Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Commonwealth ex rel. Fletcher v. Maroney, supra.
(10) The fact that relator received a more severe sentence than codefendants indicted for prison breach does not constitute a violation of his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Pennsylvania statute, 18 Purdon's Pa.Stat.Ann. § 4309, fixes a maximum term of 10 years for prison breach. The sentence of 4 1/2 to 9 years was a legal sentence.
(11) Relator has no constitutional right to be credited with 8 years which he served in prison for a murder conviction after which he was granted a new trial and acquitted.
An appropriate order will be entered.