Opinion
April 11, 1962.
June 13, 1962.
Criminal Law — Practice — Writ of error coram nobis — Writ as motion for new trial or substitute for appeal — Trial errors.
In a proceeding upon a petition for a writ of error, treated by the court below as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which it appeared that relator, who had been convicted and sentenced for burglary, complained that at the trial one of the jurors was biased, that he did not have an opportunity to challenge any juror, that he was not permitted to properly cross-examine witnesses, that one of the witnesses against him was perjured, that there was a conspiracy upon the part of the police and witnesses to convict him, and that some of the testimony against him was hearsay; and that the court below, holding that relator, who was represented by counsel, could have raised all of the questions involved at the time of the trial and again by appeal from the conviction, and that the writ of error coram nobis could not be used as a motion for a new trial nor as a substitute for an appeal, dismissed the petition; it was Held that the order of the court below should be affirmed.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 22, April T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Oct. T., 1960, No. 3084, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Joseph Weaver v. James F. Maroney, Superintendent. Order affirmed.
Same case in court below: 27 Pa. D. C. 2d 149.
Proceeding upon petition of relator for writ of error coram nobis.
Order entered dismissing writ, opinion by WOLFE, J., specially presiding. Relator appealed.
Joseph Weaver, appellant, in propria persona.
William Claney Smith, Assistant District Attorney, and Edward C. Boyle, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted April 11, 1962.
Appellant, Joseph Weaver, was indicted, tried, and convicted, in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of Allegheny County on the charge of burglary. He was then sentenced to a term of not less than five years nor more than ten years. A motion for a new trial was denied and no appeal was taken from the original conviction and sentence. On September 9, 1960, appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus which was denied on the ground that the questions raised could only be reviewed on appeal. A subsequent petition for a writ of error was treated by the court as a petition for writ of error coram nobis. It is from the denial of this petition that the present appeal was taken.
The order of the court below is affirmed on the opinion of Judge WOLFE of the Forty-seventh Judicial District, specially presiding, as reported in 27 Pa. D. C. 2d 149. See Com. v. Taylor, 193 Pa. Super. 360, 165 A.2d 390.