Com. v. Robinson, N. (judgment order)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
J-S14040-14 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. NATHAN KASSIEM ROBINSON, Appellant No. 2720 EDA 2013 Appeal from the Order September 11, 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County Criminal Division at No.: CP-48-CR-0002090-2007 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., OTT, J., and PLATT, J.* JUDGMENT ORDER BY PLATT, J.: FILED MAY 09, 2014 Appellant, Nathan Kassiem Robinson, appeals pro se from the order denying his petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Subjiciendum.1 We affirm. Appellant seeks release, citing 37 PA ADC § 91.3, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9762 (sentencing proceeding; place of confinement), and 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9764 (information required on commitment and subsequent disposition). -14). (See SCI Fayette apparently failed to produce request. (See Agency Attestation of Nonexistence of Records, 9/30/13). We have jurisdiction over the appeal of ____________________________________________ * 1 Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. For the prior history of this case, see Commonwealth v. Robinson, No. 1221 EDA 2009, unpublished memorandum (Pa. Super. filed July 20, 2010). J-S14040-14 such claims. See Brown v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 81 A.3d 814, 815 (Pa. 2013). denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus is limited to abuse of court has misapplied the law or exercised its discretion in a manner lacking reason. As in all matters on appeal, the appellant bears the burden of persuasion to demonstrate his entitlement to the relief he requests. Rivera v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 837 A.2d 525, 528 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 857 A.2d 680 (Pa. 2004) (citations omitted). The petition for habeas corpus must specifically aver facts which, if true, would entitle the relator to an award of a writ of habeas corpus and a hearing thereon. Moreover, it is a general rule that the petition may be denied summarily and without a hearing where it fails to allege facts making out a prima facie case for the issuance of the writ. Balsamo v. Mazurkiewicz, 611 A.2d 1250, 1253 (Pa. Super. 1992). Here, Appellant fails to prove entitlement to relief. The docket confirms that he was properly sentenced on April 11, 2008. He concedes that he has rece Corpus, 9/03/13, at 3-4). He fails to prove how other apparently missing documentation would establish the illegality of his confinement. The trial court properly decided that the fact that the commitment form is now missing does not entitle him to a remedy. 11/08/13; Order, 9/11/13). Order affirmed. -2- (See Trial Court Opinion, J-S14040-14 Judgment Entered. Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary Date: 5/9/2014 -3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
