160 A.2d 790
[P.C. No. 108, September Term, 1959.]Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Decided May 20, 1960. Certiorari denied, Supreme Court of the United States, November 21, 1960.
POST CONVICTION PROCEDURE ACT — Perjured Testimony — Allegations Of State’s Knowing Use Of, Held Insufficient. In the present post conviction proceeding allegations of the State’s knowing use of perjured testimony were so vague and indefinite as to be insufficient, and the petitioner’s application admitted that the allegedly untrue testimony did not appear in the transcript of the testimony of his trial, and the record showed no effort or testimony on the petitioner’s part at the post conviction hearing to substantiate his allegations as to this matter. p. 636
J.E.B.
Decided May 20, 1960.
Raymond Charles Fleury instituted a proceeding under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and from a denial of relief, he applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Page 636
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Sodaro filed in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for denying the application of Raymond C. Fleury under the Post Conviction Procedure Act, and for the further reason stated below, Fleury’s application for leave to appeal is denied. Judge Sodaro found that Fleury’s allegations of the State’s knowing use of perjured testimony were so vague and indefinite as to be insufficient. To this we add that his application admits that the allegedly untrue testimony does not appear in the transcript of the testimony of his trial and that the record of his hearing under the Post Conviction Procedure Act shows no effort or testimony on Fleury’s part to substantiate the allegations of his petition as to this matter.
Application denied.