TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

William Murray v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Re: Albert A. Fiok, Judge of Court Oyer and Terminer, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

William MURRAY, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Et Al., Re: Albert A. Fiok, Judge of Court Oyer and Terminer, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Murray v. Commonwealth of Pa., Re: Albert A. Fiok, Judge of Court Oyer & Terminer, Allegheny Cnty., Pa., 408 F.2d 498 (3d Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 6, 1969
Docket
No. 17421_1
Judges
Van Dusen, Aldisert, Stahl
Citations
408 F.2d 4981969 U.S. App. LEXIS 13361

Opinion — Per Curiam

OPINION OF THE COURT 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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1970: 11974: 119702026peak 1970 · 1

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Bauguess, 408 F.2d 498 (4th Cir. 1969) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list