In Alabama, an accused's constitutional rights are not violated by failure to afford him a preliminary hearing in a criminal proceeding. Ex parte Flanigan, 278 Ala. 432, 178 So.2d 825; Ex parte Campbell, 278 Ala. 114, 176 So.2d 242; Queor v. State, 278 Ala. 10, 174 So.2d 687; Trammell v. State, 43 Ala. App. 308, 189 So.2d 760, Id., 280 Ala. 31, 189 So.2d 763; Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 179 So.2d 51; Grace v. State, 44 Ala. App. 682, 220 So.2d 259, Id., 283 Ala. 714, 220 So.2d 261. In Alabama, after indictment, the presence or absence of a preliminary hearing prior thereto becomes a moot question.
"THE COURT: Sustained. The man was indicted. And the Court cites the cases of Braden v. State [, 45 Ala. App. 186], 227 So (2) 816, Hn. 1; Ex Parte Flanigan [, 278 Ala. 432], 178 So. (2) 825, Hn. 1; Trammell v. State [, 43 Ala. App. 308], 189 So (2) 760, Hn. 4; cert. stricken, 189 So. (2) 763. "MR. UMBACH: Your Honor, —
We held in the appeal of the first conviction for the robbery-murder of Cash, Nelson, 405 So.2d at 395, that there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing in Alabama, Ex parte Flanigan, 278 Ala. 432, 178 So.2d 825 (1965), and that a preliminary hearing is not necessary to satisfy the requirements of due process. Scaife v. State, 337 So.2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Trammell v. State, 43 Ala. App. 308, 189 So.2d 760, cert. stricken, 280 Ala. 31, 189 So.2d 763 (1966). We found that the obvious purpose of the request for a preliminary hearing and the habeas corpus hearing was discovery. 405 So.2d at 396.
A preliminary hearing is not necessary to satisfy the requirements of due process. Scaife v. State, 337 So.2d 146 (Ala.Cr.App. 1976); Trammell v. State, 43 Ala. App. 308, 189 So.2d 760, cert. stricken, 280 Ala. 31, 189 So.2d 763 (1966). The defendant does not contend that he was denied any statutory right to a preliminary hearing under Alabama Code 1975, Section 15-11-1.
Where the grounds upon which the petitioner sought coram nobis were all based on facts well known to him at the time of his conviction, coram nobis is not the proper mode for raising such questions. Trammell v. State, 43 Ala. App. 308, 189 So.2d 760, cert. denied, 280 Ala. 31, 189 So.2d 763 (1966). We recognize the difficulty in proving perjury but the appellant knew at the time the witness testified that she had previously given a contradictory statement to one of the appellant's retained attorneys. This is not the case where the defendant himself is the only one who could testify that the witness was giving false testimony. From the failure to present or even raise this issue in the trial court we can only conclude that it was deliberately waived and the judgment of conviction must stand.
This ruling was correct. It is well settled that after a person has been indicted, the failure to bring him before a committing magistrate becomes a moot question, since he is, after the action of the grand jury, not being held upon a mere warrant of arrest signed by an aggrieved citizen, but rather by reason of a solemn bill of indictment for which he must answer in the circuit court. Trammell v. State, 43 Ala. App. 308, 189 So.2d 760; Queor v. State, 278 Ala. 10, 174 So.2d 687; Manning v. State, 43 Ala. App. 182, 185 So.2d 145; Bowman v. State, 44 Ala. App. 331, 208 So.2d 241. II
"Moreover, an indictment in regular form may not be quashed because the warrant under which the indicted person was arrested was defective. Wilson v. State, 99 Ala. 194, 13 So. 427; Toney v. State, 15 Ala. App. 14, 72 So. 508; Trammell v. State, 43 Ala. App. 308, 189 So.2d 760."Jackson is still sound law and disposes of appellant's third contention.
Moreover, an indictment in regular form may not be quashed because the warrant under which the indicted person was arrested was defective. Wilson v. State, 99 Ala. 194, 13 So. 427; Toney v. State, 15 Ala. App. 14, 72 So. 508; Trammell v. State, 43 Ala. App. 308, 189 So.2d 760. The defendant filed a motion for a change of venue, on the grounds that defendant could not obtain a fair trial in St. Clair County because of unfair publicity in the news media regarding the crime charged and because of threats against defendant and his appointed lawyer by the Ku Klux Klan. No evidence was introduced in support of said motion.