habeas corpus hearing in Pennsylvania

2020See Commonwealth v. Morman, 541 A.2d 356, 360 (Pa. -5- J-A10035-20 Super. 1988) (“To make this determination [at a habeas corpus hearing], the trial court should accept into evidence the record from the preliminary hearing as well as any additional evidence which the Commonwealth may have available to further prove its prima facie case.”).

2020See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Morman, 541 A.2d 356, 359-60 (Pa.Super. 1988) (“The focus of the court in a habeas corpus hearing is properly upon the legality of the existing restraint on the petitioner’s liberty and not solely upon a review of what occurred at a prior preliminary hearing.” (emphasis added)).

2017Initially, we note that “it is firmly established that the denial of a habeas corpus claim, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence presented to the issuing authority, without a showing of exceptional circumstances[,] will not provide a basis for immediate appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Hess, 414 A.2d 1043, 1048 (Pa. 1980).

2017Initially, we note that “it is firmly established that the denial of a habeas corpus claim, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence presented to the issuing authority, without a showing of exceptional circumstances[,] . . . will not provide a basis for immediate appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Hess, 414 A.2d 1043, 1048 (1980); accord Commonwealth v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal granted, 135 A.3d 175 (Pa. 2016); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 849 A.2d 1254, 1256 (Pa. 2004).

1976Shipp v. Shipp, 209 Pa.Super. 58, 60 , 223 A.2d 906, 907 (1966). ‘This principle has application even where there has been a serious lapse from moral standards by the mother, provided her past misconduct will not adversely affect the best interests of the child.’ ” In Augustine v. Augustine, 228 Pa.Super. 312 , 324 A.2d 477 (1974), this court again addressed itself to the issue of past misconduct.

1976Shipp v. Shipp, 209 Pa.Super. 58, 60 , 223 A.2d 906, 907 (1966). ‘This principle has application even where there has been a serious lapse from moral standards by the mother, provided her past misconduct will not adversely affect the best interests of the child.’ ” In Augustine v. Augustine, 228 Pa.Super. 312 , 324 A.2d 477 (1974), this court again addressed itself to the issue of past misconduct.

2017Initially, we note that “it is firmly established that the denial of a habeas corpus claim, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence presented to the issuing authority, without a showing of exceptional circumstances[,] . . . will not provide a basis for immediate appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Hess, 414 A.2d 1043, 1048 (1980); accord Commonwealth v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal granted, 135 A.3d 175 (Pa. 2016); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 849 A.2d 1254, 1256 (Pa. 2004).

2016Commonwealth v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349, 353 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted) (holding that “errors at a preliminary hearing regarding the sufficiency of the -8- J-S12033-16 evidence are considered harmless if the defendant is found guilty at trial”); see also Commonwealth v. Troop, 571 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Super. 1990) (noting that once a defendant has been convicted at trial, any defect in the preliminary hearing has been satisfied).

2004“Although a habeas corpus hearing is similar to a preliminary hearing, in a habeas corpus proceeding, the Commonwealth has the opportunity to present additional evidence to establish that the defendant has committed the elements of the offense charged.” Keller at 1010 , quoting Commonwealth v. Fountain, 811 A.2d 24, 25 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2003Before we may address this claim of error, however, we must determine whether the Commonwealth may refile criminal charges after failing to make a prima facie case at a habeas corpus hearing. ¶ 27 It is well settled in this Commonwealth that "a petition for writ of habeas corpus is the proper vehicle for challenging a pre-trial finding that the Commonwealth presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case." Kohlie, 811 A.2d at 1013 ; see Hetherington, 460 Pa. at 23 , 331 A.2d at 209 ; Commonwealth v. Fountain, 811 A.2d 24 , 25 n. 1 (Pa.Super.2002); Commonwealth v. Saunders, 456 Pa

1980We have often emphasized that “ ‘custody must be determined on the basis of facts as they exist at the time of the habeas corpus hearing.’ ” Kessler v. Gregory, supra, 271 Pa.Super. at 124 , 412 A.2d at 607 (quoting In re Leskovich, 253 Pa.Super. 349, 357 , 385 A.2d 373, 377 (1978)).

1980We have often emphasized that “ ‘custody must be determined on the basis of facts as they exist at the time of the habeas corpus hearing.’ ” Kessler v. Gregory, supra, 271 Pa.Super. at 124 , 412 A.2d at 607 (quoting In re Leskovich, 253 Pa.Super. 349, 357 , 385 A.2d 373, 377 (1978)).

1997Although a habeas corpus hearing is similar to a preliminary hearing, in a habeas corpus proceeding the Commonwealth has the opportunity to present additional evidence to establish that the defendant has committed the elements of the offense charged. [Citations omitted.] Id. at 381 , 674 A.2d at 250-51 .

1997Although a habeas corpus hearing is similar to a preliminary hearing, in a habeas corpus proceeding the Commonwealth has the opportunity to present additional evidence to establish that the defendant has committed the elements of the offense charged. [Citations omitted.] Id. at 381 , 674 A.2d at 250-51 .

2020Dantzler, supra at 1112 .

2020Id.

2018Commonwealth v. Fowlin , 450 Pa.Super. 489 , 676 A.2d 665 (1996), citing Commonwealth v. Owen , 397 Pa.Super. 507 , 580 A.2d 412 , 413 (1990).

2018Commonwealth v. Fowlin , 450 Pa.Super. 489 , 676 A.2d 665 (1996), citing Commonwealth v. Owen , 397 Pa.Super. 507 , 580 A.2d 412 , 413 (1990).

2017S36037/17 (Appellant’s response to the rule to show cause why the appeal should not be quashed as untimely and interlocutory, 8/19/16 at unnumbered page 2, ¶ 5.) Appellant then averred that, [i]nsofar as the instant appeal raises identical issues as those raised in Ricker and currently under review by our Supreme Court, but actually amplifies them by adding incarceration at a state correctional facility and the use of double hearsay to support a prima facie case at a habeas corpus hearing, it is evident that exceptional circumstances exist herein to permit this Honorable Court to exercise juri

2017Initially, we note that “it is firmly established that the denial of a habeas corpus claim, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence presented to the issuing authority, without a showing of exceptional circumstances[,] . . . will not provide a basis for immediate appellate review.” Commonwealth v. Hess, 414 A.2d 1043, 1048 (1980); accord Commonwealth v. Ricker, 120 A.3d 349 (Pa.Super. 2015), appeal granted, 135 A.3d 175 (Pa. 2016); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 849 A.2d 1254, 1256 (Pa. 2004).

2013The court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth” and “consider the reasonable inferences based on that evidence which could support a guilty verdict.” Williams, supra. Although a habeas corpus hearing is similar to a preliminary hearing, in a habeas corpus proceeding the Commonwealth has the opportunity to present additional evidence to establish that the defendant has committed the elements of the offense charged.

2010See Commonwealth v. Williams, 911 A.2d 548 (Pa. Super. 2006).

2025See Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 354 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. 1976) (“Where evidence, incompetent as hearsay, is admitted without objection it may be given its natural probative effect as if it was in law admissible.”); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Foreman, 797 A.2d 1005, 1012 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“Although Detective Hughes relied on some hearsay statements from police reports to confirm that property found at [Foreman’s] business had been reported stolen, defense counsel never raised a hearsay - 12 - J-S36036-25 objection.

2025See Commonwealth v. Merced, 265 A.3d 786, 793 (Pa. Super. 2021) (holding that Superior Court “has appellate, subject matter jurisdiction over orders granting habeas corpus relief” because “[s]uch orders are final, civil judgments against the Commonwealth”).

2025See Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 354 A.2d 545, 552 (Pa. 1976) (“Where evidence, incompetent as hearsay, is admitted without objection it may be given its natural probative effect as if it was in law admissible.”); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Foreman, 797 A.2d 1005, 1012 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“Although Detective Hughes relied on some hearsay statements from police reports to confirm that property found at [Foreman’s] business had been reported stolen, defense counsel never raised a hearsay - 12 - J-S36036-25 objection.

2024Williams, 305 A.3d at 93 .3 Because we accept the suppression court’s findings about Zagorulko’s English comprehension, we conclude that Zagorulko gave valid consent to a ____________________________________________ 3 The suppression court was not required to accept the parties’ stipulation of the testimony from the habeas corpus hearing.

2024Williams, 305 A.3d at 93.3 Because we accept the suppression court’s findings about Zagorulko’s English comprehension, we conclude that Zagorulko gave valid consent to a ____________________________________________ 3 The suppression court was not required to accept the parties’ stipulation of the testimony from the habeas corpus hearing.

2024Appellant, nevertheless, acknowledges that the “PCRA statute subsumes the writ of habeas corpus[, such that issues] that are cognizable under the PCRA must be raised in a timely PCRA petition and cannot be raised in a habeas corpus petition.” Id. at 20 (quoting Commonwealth v. Taylor, 65 A.3d 462, 465-66 (Pa. Super. 2013)); see also 42 Pa.C.S. § 9542.

2020Thus, because Pelzer did not challenge the fact or duration of his confinement, the habeas corpus exclusion to the “three strikes rule” does not apply.6 See, e.g., Pew, 929 A.2d at 1219 (concluding that the habeas corpus exception 5 Pursuant to this Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, an unreported opinion of the Court filed after January 15, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value. 210 Pa. Code §69.414 (a). 6 Pelzer does not appear to argue that the second exclusion to the “three strikes rule” applies; however, even if Pelzer had raised it, we would conclude that Pelzer had not request

2020The “credible allegation” requirement of section 6602 of the PLRA “indicates that the supporting averments must go beyond being merely rational[] and conceivable and must possess the additional characteristics of being reliable and convincing.” Brown v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrections, 58 A.3d 118, 123 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (Brown III).

2019See Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493, 496-97 (Pa. 2016) ("The [PCRA is] the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose ... including habeas corpus and coram nobis.") (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223-24 (Pa. 1999)(opining that the writ of habeas corpus continues to exist as an independent basis for relief only in cases in which there is no remedy under the PCRA).

2019See Rouse, 191 A.3d at 6-7 (stating that waiver exists where a habeas corpus claim could have been raised at sentencing or in a post-sentence motion but was not so raised).

2019Pa.R.A.P. 2119; Commonwealth v. Beshore, 916 A.2d 1128, 1140 (Pa.Super. 2007).7 With regard to his second issue, Appellant avers that although the PCRA court found the Birchfield issues to have been previously litigated, an ineffectiveness claim is distinct from the habeas corpus claim Appellant had attempted to litigate on direct appeal.

2019See Commonwealth v. Descardes, 136 A.3d 493, 496-97 (Pa. 2016) ("The [PCRA is] the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose ... including habeas corpus and coram nobis.") (quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542); Commonwealth v. Fahy, 737 A.2d 214, 223-24 (Pa. 1999)(opining that the writ of habeas corpus continues to exist as an independent basis for relief only in cases in which there is no remedy under the PCRA).