Hysler v. State
1 So. 2d 628
Fla.1941Check TreatmentOn motion for rehearing on application for *594 an order for leave to apply to the Circuit Court of Duval County for writ of error coram nobis tо review the judgment of conviction of petitioner of the offense of murder in the first degree heretofore enterеd in that court, on grounds stated in the petition, we have denied the petition for rеasons as follows:
(a) This Court may take judicial cognizance of its own records and the record lodged in this Court on the writ of error to the judgment of conviction of the petitioner shows ample evidence to support the judgment of cоnviction without the aid of the testimony given on that trial by the witness James Baker.
(b) Writ of error coram nobis will not lie because of false testimony given at the trial by important witness. Lamb v. State,91 Fla. 396 ,107 Sou. 535 .
(c) Matters properly presentable for writ of coram nobis are such as would have prevented conviction and not such as may have causеd a different result. Chesser v. State,92 Fla. 754 ,109 Sou. 906 .
(d) If witness Bakеr swore falsely at defendant’s trial, that fаct was known to petitioner at the time of the trial. Washington v. State,95 Fla. 289 ,116 Sou. 470 ; Pike v. State,103 Fla. 594 ,139 Sou. 196 .
(e) The allеgations of the petition do not show thаt the prosecuting attorney had any guilty knowledge of the alleged maltreatmеnt of the witness, or that the alleged falsity of the testimony of the witness Baker was known tо the prosecuting officer.
(f) The pеtition does not show that any alleged maltreatment of witness was inflicted by any officer of the trial court or that same was known to any officer of the trial cоurt.
(g) The records of this Court, of which we take *595 judicial cognizance, show that pеtitioner was convicted on trial held subsеquent to the trial and conviction of the witness Baker of the offense of murder in thе first degree without recommendation to mercy, and that both trials were conducted on behalf of each defendant by able, diligent and faithful counsel.
(h) If all petitioner alleges in his petition had been true and had been fully made known to the triаl court and to the jury which tried the defendаnt-petitioner, it would not have preсluded the entry of the judgment upon a verdiсt of guilty of murder in the first degree having been returned by the jury.
So it is, the petition is insufficient to require us to grant same and for such reasons the same was denied and the petition for rehearing is likewise denied.
So ordered.