Case ID: pa-super_230/html/0447-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Spaeth, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Commonwealth v. Toledo, Appellant.
    Submitted September 9,1974.
    Before Watkins, P. J., Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Yan der Yoort, and Spaeth, JJ.
    
      
      Charles F. G. Smith, for appellant.
    
      Maxine J. Stotland, Mark Sendrow, and Steven E. Goldblatt, Assistant District Attorneys, Abraham J. Gafm, Deputy District Attorney, Bichard A. Sprague, First Assistant District Attorney, and F. Emmett Fitzpatrick, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
    December 11, 1974:
   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.