Opinion
September 15, 1960.
November 16, 1960.
Criminal Law — Practice — Habeas corpus — Allegations of petitioner — Oral sentence — Privilege of calling witnesses — Duty of court to explain charges to defendant — Sufficiency of evidence — Questioning of defendant — Right to waiver of trial by jury — Prejudice of juror.
In a habeas corpus proceeding, in which it appeared that petitioner averred that the sentence which he was serving was not the sentence pronounced by the court, that he was denied the privilege of witnesses in his behalf, that the court failed in its duty to explain to him the nature and cause of the charges, that the Commonwealth failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his guilt, that he was subjected to continuous lengthy questioning without benefit of counsel, that he was denied an opportunity to waive trial by jury, and that one juror was prejudiced against him, it was Held that the order of the court below dismissing the petition for the writ should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, WATKINS, and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
Appeal, No. 304, Oct. T., 1960, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 7 of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1959, No. 3703, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Willie Conyers v. William J. Banmiller, Warden. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 22 Pa. D. C. 2d 331.
Habeas corpus.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by WATERS, J. Relator appealed.
Willie Conyers, appellant, in propria persona.
Domenick Vitullo, Assistant District Attorney, Paul M. Chalfin, First Assistant District Attorney, and Victor H. Blanc, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted September 15, 1960.
The order of the court below dismissing petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed on the opinion of Judge WATERS, as reported in 22 Pa. D. C. 2d 331.