Case Name: Commonwealth v. Milliken, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1974-07-01
Citations: 456 Pa. 527
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 43
Parties: Commonwealth v. Milliken, Appellant.
Judges: Before Jones, C. J., Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Mandereno, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 456
Pages: 527–529

Head Matter:
Commonwealth v. Milliken, Appellant.
Submitted May 20, 1974.
Before Jones, C. J., Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Mandereno, JJ.
Philip D. Freedman, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Rolf W. Bienk, Deputy District Attorney, and Le-Roy S. Zimmerman, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
July 1, 1974:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts,
On direct appeal from his conviction of murder in the first degree, appellant argued that a warrant authorizing the search of his apartment was unconstitutionally issued because sworn oral testimony was used to supplement the written affidavit. This Court rejected his claim and affirmed the judgment of sentence. Commonwealth v. Milliken, 450 Pa. 310, 300 A.2d 78 (1973). See also United States ex rel. Gaugler v. Brierley, 477 F.2d 516 (3d Cir. 1973); Commonwealth v. Conner, 452 Pa. 333, 305 A.2d 341 (1973); Commonwealth v. Bedford, 451 Pa. 325, 304 A.2d 453 (1973); Commonwealth v. Simmons, 450 Pa. 624, 301 A.2d 819 (1973).
In this post-conviction proceeding, Milliken again raises the identical issue. By virtue of our previous adjudication, this issue is finally litigated. Post Con viction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1580, § 4(a) (3), 19 P.S. § 1180-4(a) (3) (Supp. 1973); see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Frazier, 455 Pa. 162, 314 A.2d 16 (1974). The hearing court therefore correctly refused to reconsider this issue and properly dismissed the petition. The Post Conviction Hearing Act is not a vehicle for the relitigation of previously-adjudicated claims.
Order affirmed.