WILLIAM MURRAY, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL., RE: ALBERT A. FIOK, JUDGE OF COURT OYER AND TERMINER, ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the district court properly denied the appellant's petition, as he failed to exhaust state remedies and delays were caused by his own requests.
Appellant filed a pro se petition, potentially for habeas corpus, against the state judge from his murder trial. His main complaint was a delay in tri…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Continuance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant filed a pro se petition in the District Court, entitled “Motion to Dismiss”, naming as the defendant the state judge who presided at his trial which resulted in a conviction of first degree murder. The petition is capable of being treated as either one for a writ of habe-as corpus or as a request for some other appropriate but ill-defined relief.
We observe that the appellant’s major complaint appears to be that he was not brought to trial or enlarged on bail within 180 days after arrest as provided in Pennsylvania’s Act of March 31, 1860, P.L. 427 § 54; 19 P.S. § 781. Assuming that such allegations are of constitutional dimension, we have concluded that any delay in trial was precipitated by the appellant’s own requests for continuances which were presented at various times by his counsel.
Moreover, on the basis of the present record, relief must be denied for the failure of the appellant to exhaust the appropriate state post-conviction remedies.
Other matters complained of, including what purports to be an attempt to appeal from a denial of his request for bail following conviction, are matters for state court determination.
We have considered the entire petition and conclude that the court below properly denied the relief sought. We will affirm the denial of the prayers of petition by the District Court.