Ex parte Reliford, 8 Div. 555
| Decision Date | 04 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 555 |
| Citation | 37 Ala.App. 697,75 So.2d 90 |
| Parties | Ex parte Lewis RELIFORD. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Robt. Straub, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is an application for leave to apply to the Circuit Court of Marshall County for a writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner was convicted in that court for the illegal possession of prohibited liquors and the judgment of conviction was affirmed in this court on September 3, 1954. Reliford v. State, 75 So.2d 88.
The petitioner sets up that since the affirmance of the judgment in this court two other persons, Gilbert Smallwood and William D. Reliford, have voluntarily admitted that they placed the five-gallon jacket can of whiskey near defendant's barn a few nights before it was found there by the officers. The affidavits of these two persons are made a part of the petition. The affidavits set out that defendant did not know affiants placed the whiskey on his premises and did not give his permission for it to be placed there. Both affiants state they did not know defendant had been charged with or convicted of possession of this whiskey until after affirmance in this court.
The petitioner states that he has exercised reasonable diligence in ascertaining the facts surrounding his arrest, trial and conviction; that the facts set out in the petition and the affidavits were unknown to the court, the petitioner and his counsel at the time of the trial, and could not have been discovered by the exercise of due diligence.
In the case of Ex parte Fewell, 73 So.2d 558, 560, the Supreme Court stated:
The matters that may properly be presented in an application for authority to petition for writ of error coram nobis are such as if presented in the trial court would have prevented the rendition of the judgment challenged, and not such as may have caused a different result. Hysler v. State, 146 Fla. 593, 1 So.2d 628; Chesser v. State, 92 Fla. 754, 109 So. 906; Stephens v. State, 36 Ala.App. 57, 52 So.2d 169.
We have reviewed the evidence set out in the record on appeal, since this court takes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Summers v. State
...(2) that the perjured testimony was on a matter of such importance that the truth would have prevented a conviction. Ex parte Reliford, 37 Ala.App. 697, 75 So.2d 90 (1954); (3) that the prosecution had knowledge that the testimony was perjured; and (4) that the defendant was not negligent i......
-
Clark v. United States
...cases: Fast v. State, 221 So.2d 203 (Ct. App.Fla.1969); Ex parte Fewell, 261 Ala. 246, 73 So.2d 558, 561 (1954); Ex parte Reliford, 37 Ala.App. 697, 75 So.2d 90, 91 (1954); Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 767, 140 S.W.2d 675 (1940); People v. Vernon, 9 Cal.App.2d 138, 49 P.2d 326 (1935); Powers v.......
-
Wadsworth v. State
...(2) that the perjured testimony was on a matter of such importance that the truth would have prevented a conviction. Ex parte Reliford, 37 Ala.App. 697, 75 So.2d 90 (1954); (3) that the prosecution had knowledge that the testimony was perjured; and (4) that the defendant was not negligent i......
-
Pitts v. State
...nobis will not furnish a sufficient reason for its issuance. Ex parte Fewell, 261 Ala. 246, 73 So.2d 558 (1954); Ex parte Reliford, 37 Ala.App. 697, 75 So.2d 90 (1954). The discovery, at a time subsequent to the date of the trial, that testimony which was introduced thereat was perjured may......