Court Opinion

ID: 9689738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:45:19.616589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:51.855368
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing
HARWOOD, Presiding Judge.
In his application for rehearing - appellant complains that we “failed to rule on, or make mention of, confessions that petitioner sent to this honorable court, said statements stating that O. J. Stokes, and Howard Clonts, had committed the crime that petitioner is in prison for, and that petitioner did not take any part in, nor did he know anything about said crime.”
The grounds on which petitioner sought a writ are as stated in our opinion, and the papers now referred to-by appellant were not mentioned.
- The petition was filed on 13 June 1961. Thereafter petitioner filed what is labeled’ “Traverse to motion to dismiss petition for leave to file petition of error coram nobis in trial Court.”
*445In this document appellant states that he “has in his possession new evidence he did not have at the trial or at the time petition was filed.
“Petitioner has statements sworn to before a Notary Public from the two men that committed the crime that he is in prison for.
“(Attached hereto copies of same, marked exhibits E and F), petitioner will produce originals at the direction of this honorable court.”
The exhibits E and F are purported statements of O. J. Stokes and Howard Clonts respectively.
The purported statement by Stokes is to the effect that “Howard Clonts and myself hijacked and stole a truck from Towns Express Co. Jimmy Argo was arrested and convicted of the crime and sentenced to serve six (6) years in prison on 18th day of March, 1960.
“I swear under oath that Jimmy Argo did not have anything to do with the stealing of the truck, nor did he know anything about it.
“O. J. Stokes” (written signature)
A purported statement from Howard Clonts is to the same effect.
Neither statement is sworn to before any officer authorized to administer oaths.
For this reason, if for no other, we would not be warranted in granting the relief prayed for by appellant. An unsworn statement should not furnish a basis for setting aside a judgment of record entered upon a verdict rendered by a jury on sworn testimony presumably sufficient to support the verdict. While the petition itself is sworn to, the exhibits are pure hearsay. Ex parte Williams, 268 Ala. 535, 108 So.2d 454.
Further, the mere existence of a confession of guilt by one other than the applicant for the writ of error coram nobis will not furnish a sufficient reason for its issuance. Ex parte Fewell, 261 Ala. 246, 73 So.2d 558.
Ordinarily we would not have written to this application for rehearing where it is obviously without merit. We have done so in this case because the appellant is proceeding pro se.
Application overruled.