taking of personal property without the permission of the possessor.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of sentence per curiam. Commonwealth v. Bellman, 217 Pa. Super. 744, 268 A. 2d 181 (1970). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania denied allocatur on October 30, 1970.
The alleged trial errors involving questions of state law are not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Whether the trial judge erred in his charge, or whether the jury disobeyed the trial judge's instructions, are questions which, although properly raised on direct appeal, cannot be adjudicated in the federal courts. Our habeas jurisdiction does not allow us to review the conclusions reached by the state appellate courts which rejected relator's claims founded on Pennsylvania law.
Similarly, we cannot review the sufficiency of the evidence in support of the conviction for aggravated assault and battery. The question presented to a federal court by such a claim, in the words of Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S. Ct. 624, 4 L. Ed. 2d 654 (1960), is whether
"* * * the charges * * * were so totally devoid of evidentiary support as to render [the] conviction unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Decision of this question turns not on the sufficiency of the evidence, but on whether [the] conviction rests upon any evidence at all."