COM. EX REL. RILEY v. RUNDLE, 418 Pa. 168 (1965)

210 A.2d 270

Commonwealth ex rel. Riley, Appellant, v. Rundle.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.Submitted January 8, 1965.
May 25, 1965.

Criminal law — Convicted murderer — Habeas corpus proceeding — Constitutional law.

In this habeas corpus proceeding by a petitioner who was serving a life sentence for first degree murder, it wa Held upon a

Page 169

review of the record in the habeas corpus proceeding as well as the record in the criminal case which underlies it that the court below had correctly concluded that petitioner was accorded the benefit of every constitutional guarantee and had properly dismissed the petition.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O’BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 99, Jan. T., 1965, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, Dec. T., 1963, No. 2239, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Gettis Riley, also known as Gettis Rocky, v. A. T. Rundle, Superintendent. Order affirmed.

Habeas corpus.

Petition dismissed, order by WEINROTT, J. Relator appealed.

Gettis Riley, appellant, in propria persona.

Benjamin H. Renshaw and Joseph M. Smith, Assistant District Attorneys, F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, Jr., First Assistant District Attorney, and James C. Crumlish, Jr., District Attorney, for appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, May 25, 1965:

On March 19, 1962, appellant, represented by court appointed counsel, entered pleas of guilty to murder generally on two bills of indictment. A court en banc heard three days of testimony and arguments and adjudged appellant guilty of first degree murder on each bill and sentenced him to life imprisonment on each bill. No appeal was taken from the judgment of sentence.

On January 14, 1964, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which, after hearing, was dismissed by the court below; this appeal followed.

Page 170

We have carefully examined appellant’s allegations and have fully reviewed the record in the habeas corpus proceeding as well as the record in the criminal case which underlies it. Our examination and review leads us, inescapably, to an agreement with the court below that appellant “was accorded the benefit of every constitutional guarantee”. His allegations, individually or collectively, form no basis for the grant of the writ prayed for.

Order affirmed.