Opinion
November 17, 1958.
December 9, 1958.
Criminal law — Practice — Writ of coram nobis — Alleged facts which petitioner could not have known of at trial — Facts actually determined at trial.
In a proceeding upon a petition for a writ of coram nobis, in which petitioner averred that he had a witness whose testimony if it had been offered at his trial would have prevented his being adjudged guilty; and in which it appeared that the facts alleged by petitioner were not such that they could not have been known by him at the time of trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence, and that the facts sought to be proved by the new testimony had been actually determined at the trial; it was Held that the order of the court below dismissing the petition should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 415, Oct. T., 1958, from order of Court or Quarter Sessions of the Peace of Philadelphia County, May T., 1956, Nos. 384 and 385, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Spencer Rogers v. Harry J. Hendricks, Warden. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 15 Pa. D. C. 2d 39.
Proceeding upon petition of relator for writ of error coram nobis.
Order entered dismissing petition, opinion by GRIFFITHS, J. Relator appealed.
Spencer Rogers, appellant, in propria persona.
Juanita Kidd Stout and Benjamin H. Renshaw, Jr., Assistant District Attorneys, James N. Lafferty, First Assistant District Attorney, and Victor H. Blanc, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted November 17, 1958.
The order of the court below dismissing relator's petition for writ of error coram nobis is affirmed on the opinion of Judge GRIFFITHS, as reported in 15 Pa. D. C. 2d 39. See, also, Com. v. Connelly, 172 Pa. Super. 363, 94 A.2d 68; Com. v. Kurus, 371 Pa. 633, 634, 635, 92 A.2d 196.