Commonwealth v. Toledo

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Toledo

331 A.2d 888, 230 Pa. Super. 447, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2480

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedDecember 11, 1974

DocketAppeal, 1034

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 331 A.2d 888 (Commonwealth v. Toledo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Toledo, 331 A.2d 888, 230 Pa. Super. 447, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2480 (Pa. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Spaeth, J.,

This is an appeal from a denial without hearing of relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, §1 et seq., 19 P.S. §1180-1 et seq. (Supp. 1974-75). All of the issues raised are rephrasing of issues previously raised on direct appeal when the conviction was affirmed. Commonwealth v. Toledo, 221 Pa. Superior Ct. 752, 289 A.2d 112 (1972), allocatur refused, 221 Pa. Superior Ct. xlv (1972). As the issues have thus been “finally litigated,” §§4(a)(2) and (3) of the Act, supra, 19 P.S. §§1180-4(a) (2), (3) (Supp. 1974-75), appellant is not “eligible for relief,” id., §3(d), 19 P.S. §1180-3(d) (Supp. 1974-75); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 452 Pa. 376, 305 A.2d 9 (1973).

Appellant’s claim that perjured testimony was used against him is merely a renewal of a previous attack on the credibility of the witness and thus does not present an issue of after-discovered evidence. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mosteller, 446 Pa. 83, 284 A.2d 786 (1971).

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Spaeth, J.,

This is an appeal from a denial without hearing of relief under the Post Conviction Hearing Act, Act of January 25, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1580, §1 et seq., 19 P.S. §1180-1 et seq. (Supp. 1974-75). All of the issues raised are rephrasing of issues previously raised on direct appeal when the conviction was affirmed. Commonwealth v. Toledo, 221 Pa. Superior Ct. 752, 289 A.2d 112 (1972), allocatur refused, 221 Pa. Superior Ct. xlv (1972). As the issues have thus been “finally litigated,” §§4(a)(2) and (3) of the Act, supra, 19 P.S. §§1180-4(a) (2), (3) (Supp. 1974-75), appellant is not “eligible for relief,” id., §3(d), 19 P.S. §1180-3(d) (Supp. 1974-75); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 452 Pa. 376, 305 A.2d 9 (1973).

Appellant’s claim that perjured testimony was used against him is merely a renewal of a previous attack on the credibility of the witness and thus does not present an issue of after-discovered evidence. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Mosteller, 446 Pa. 83, 284 A.2d 786 (1971).

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

331 A.2d 888, 230 Pa. Super. 447, 1974 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2480, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-toledo-pasuperct-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack