Court Opinion

ID: 9635386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:49:38.321983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:26.409146
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s dismissal of this direct appeal from a judgment of sentence because no issue as to the *14propriety of that judgment has been raised herein. Appellant’s single allegation of error is directed not at the court which revoked the probation and imposed sentence but at the Bureau of Corrections. Specifically, appellant seeks to challenge the action of the Bureau in lodging detainers against him based on its interpretation of the sentence imposed on a probation violation. The Bureau is neither a party to the instant appeal nor has its action been the subject of any prior adjudication. Thus appellant’s complaint is not properly before this Court on direct appeal and consideration of the merits of that complaint is inappropriate.1
Appellant may, of course, test the legality of his detention in a habeas corpus proceeding brought in the appropriate court of common pleas. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6502; Pa.R. Crim.P. 170(a).
LARSEN and ZAPPALA, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.

. The direct appeal, where available, is unquestionably the preferred procedure for disposing of all issues raised in connection with conviction and sentencing in a criminal matter. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Webster, 466 Pa. 314, 353 A.2d 372 (1975). However, a pending direct appeal may not be employed as a vehicle for airing grievances which do not arise from the judgment of sentence from which that appeal was taken.