Opinion
October 6, 1955.
November 16, 1955.
Criminal law — Practice — Writ of error coram nobis — Purpose and limitations — Averments of relator.
1. In a proceeding upon a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which it appeared that relator averred: (1) that it was not established at the trial that he was at the scene of the crime; (2) that he was not allowed to see a copy of the indictment; (3) that perjured testimony was accepted at the trial; and (4) that he was innocent of the offense charged; it was Held that relator's allegations afforded no basis for a writ of error coram nobis.
2. The writ of error coram nobis to nullify or reform a judgment lies only where facts exist extrinsic of the record, unknown and unknowable by the exercise of diligence at the time of its rendition, and which would, if known, have prevented the judgment either in its entirety or in the form in which it was rendered.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, ROSS, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, and ERVIN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 311, Oct. T., 1955, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions and Oyer and Terminer of Berks County, Sept. T., 1953, No. 203, in case of Commonwealth ex rel. Frank Luzzi v. Court of Quarter Sessions and Oyer and Terminer. Order affirmed.
Proceeding upon petition of relator for writ of coram nobis.
Order entered dismissing petition, before MAYS, P.J. Relator appealed.
Frank Luzzi, appellant, in propria persona.
Edward Youngerman, Assistant District Attorney, and Henry M. Koch, District Attorney, for appellee.
Submitted October 6, 1955.
Relator has appealed from the dismissal of his petition for writ of error coram nobis by the Court of Quarter Sessions of Berks County. The petition is devoid of merit, and it was proper for the court below to dismiss it. Relator's petition for the writ contains substantially the same averments as those in his petition for writ of habeas corpus which was before this Court on appeal in Com. ex rel. Luzzi v. Tees, 176 Pa. Super. 528, 108 A.2d 921, wherein we held that relator had not established any denial of due process or other infringement of his rights. Relator's petition for the writ of error coram nobis set forth: (1) That it was not established at the trial that he was at the scene of the crime; (2) that he was not allowed to see a copy of the indictment; (3) that perjured testimony was accepted at the trial; and (4) that he was innocent of the offense charged.
These allegations afford no basis for a writ of error coram nobis. We have repeatedly referred to the purpose and the limitations of this extraordinary remedy. See Com. v. Geisel, 170 Pa. Super. 636, 90 A.2d 306; Com. ex rel. Comer v. Claudy, 172 Pa. Super. 380, 94 A.2d 119; Com. ex rel. Hershey v. Tees, 176 Pa. Super. 640, 109 A.2d 551.
In Com. v. Harris, 351 Pa. 325, 327, 41 A.2d 688, 690, it was said: "The writ of error coram nobis to nullify or reform a judgment lies only where facts exist extrinsic of the record, unknown and unknowable by the exercise of diligence at the time of its rendition, and which would, if known, have prevented the judgment either in its entirety or in the form in which it was rendered."
Order of the court below is affirmed.