Opinion
March 23, 1956.
April 11, 1956.
Criminal law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Necessity of hearing — Denial of parole — Jurisdiction of Board of Parole.
1. The Pennsylvania Board of Parole has exclusive jurisdiction of all matters of parole.
2. The action of the Board of Parole in denying a prisoner a parole after the expiration of his minimum sentence is not reviewable on habeas corpus.
3. Where a petition for a writ of habeas corpus raises no question of fact to be decided by the court and fails to establish any ground entitling relator to relief, no hearing is necessary.
4. In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which relator contended that he was placed in double jeopardy, in that the Board of Parole had refused to grant a parole because of the nature of the case, his previous record, and his behavior, which matters must have been considered by the trial judge when he imposed sentence, it was Held that relator's petition was without merit.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and CARR, JJ.
Appeal, No. 42, Oct. T., 1956, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Habeas Corpus Docket, No. 3, page 224, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. John Philip Scheid v. Charles G. Day, Warden. Order affirmed.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered dismissing petition. Relator appealed.
John Philip Scheid, appellant, in propria persona.
William C. Storb, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted March 23, 1956.
Relator has appealed from the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County dismissing, without a hearing, his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The contention as presented by relator on this appeal is that he has been placed in double jeopardy, as the Pennsylvania Board of Parole refused to grant a parole because of the nature of the case, his previous record, and his behavior, which matters must have been considered previously by the trial judge when imposing sentence.
There is no merit in relator's petition.
According to relator's petition he was sentenced on May 15, 1953, to undergo imprisonment in the State Penitentiary at Graterford for not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years after being found guilty of the charge of prostitution of a female child. The indictment was at No. 49, March Term, 1953, in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Lancaster County.
The Pennsylvania Board of Parole has exclusive jurisdiction of all matters of parole. Com. ex rel. Carmelo v. Smith, 347 Pa. 495, 496, 32 A.2d 913; Com. ex rel. Williamson v. Burke, 172 Pa. Super. 39, 42, 92 A.2d 239. Admittedly, relator is in legal custody under a valid sentence. Action of the Parole Board in denying him a parole after the expiration of the minimum sentence is not reviewable on habeas corpus. Com. ex rel. Biglow v. Ashe, 348 Pa. 409, 35 A.2d 340. See, also, Com. ex rel. Di Camillo v. Burke, 172 Pa. Super. 10, 91 A.2d 916; Com. ex rel. Brown v. Pennsylvania Board of Parole, 368 Pa. 244, 247, 82 A.2d 43; Com. ex rel. Sherman v. Burke, 364 Pa. 198, 70 A.2d 302.
Relator's petition for writ of habeas corpus raises no question of fact to be decided by the court and fails to establish any ground entitling relator to relief; hence no hearing was necessary. Com. ex rel. Luzzi v. Tees, 176 Pa. Super. 528, 108 A.2d 921.
Order is affirmed.