Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1440 CriminalCOMMONWEALTH Ve CHRISTOPHER J. WILLIAMS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1440 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BEFORE OLER, J.  ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this2~ day of February, 1998, upon consideration of Defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the petition is DISMISSED. Merle L. Ebert, Jr., Esq. District Attorney Attorney for the Commonwealth BY THE COURT, Christopher John Williams No. CJ-2742 R.D. 3, Box 500 Hunlock Creek, PA 18621-9580 Defendant, Pro Se : rc COMMONWEALTH Ve CHRISTOPHER J. WILLIAMS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1440 CRIMINAL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BEFORE OLER, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J., February 24, 1998. In this criminal case involving a charge of simple assault, which was nol. prossed on October 3, 1997, Defendant has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus. The basis for the petition appears to be that Defendant was revoked by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole in an unrelated case for a technical violation arising out of the behavior which resulted in the charge of simple assault. It appears to be Defendant's position that this court should reverse the action of the state parole board, because a nol. pros. was entered by the Cumberland County District Attorney in the above-captioned case. For several reasons, the court is unable to take such action. First, the above-captioned case is not the case in which Defendant is undergoing incarceration by way of a parole revocation. Second, this court does not have jurisdiction to reverse an action of the state parole board in revoking an individual's state parole. See Commonwealth v. Fells, 513 Pa. 18, 20, 518 A.2d 544, 544 (1986). Third, a nol. pros. is not equivalent to a finding that the behavior which prompted the charge NO. 97-1440 CRIMINAL TERM did not occur. See Commonwealth v. Perillo, 426 Pa. Super. 1, 6, 626 A.2d 163, 166 (1993). For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 24th day of February, 1998, upon consideration of Defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the petition is DISMISSED. BY THE COURT, Merle L. Ebert, Jr., Esq. District Attorney Attorney for the Commonwealth Christopher John Williams No. CJ-2742 R.D. 3, Box 500 Hunlock Creek, PA 18621-9580 Defendant, Pro Se : rc s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J.