In Re Swain

SCHAUER, J.

In November, 1945, petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to state prison for the term of his natural life; by this application for habeas corpus he (appearing in propria persona) attacks the validity of the judgment of conviction. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we have concluded that his application should be denied.

The petition contains averments of conclusions which, if they were entitled to acceptance at full value, would require issuance of the writ. Petitioner alleges that the judgment was “obtained through ‘Fraud, False Perjured Testimony/ knowingly, consciously and deliberately used by the . . . prosecuting attorney in prosecuting the petitioner . . . That your petitioner was knowingly, consciously and deliberately denied an eye witness at the seen [sic] of the offense by the said prosecuting attorney, in the proceedings against petitioner. That the said witness is Mrs. Mollokoff, and lived at that time at 1318% E Street, Sacramento, California . . . That the said prosecuting attorney substituted one Norvin E. Smith, to translate the testimony of said witness that the petitioner was denied of, and that the said Norvin E. Smith, consciously and deliberately ‘Falsely Testified’ as to the statements made by the said witness that was

[302]

denied the petitioner, and that he, the said Norvin E. Smith, made False and Prejudice [sic] Statements against the petitioner in his testimony. ’

1

It is the practice of this court to require, substantially, that one who seeks to show that his conviction was obtained by the prosecution’s knowing use of perjured testimony quote or otherwise designate specifically the precise testimony which it is asserted was perjured, state in detail what the actual facts are, and name or otherwise identify the person connected with the prosecution who knew it was perjured and persisted in using it, stating also the circumstances establishing such person’s knowledge of the facts. Petitioner has not informed us what testimony of Mrs. Mollokoff was assertedly suppressed or what testimony of Mr. Smith was assertedly false, nor has he stated the circumstances establishing that the “prosecuting attorney” knew these facts.

Furthermore, it is the practice of this court to require that one who belatedly presents a collateral attack such as this explain the delay in raising the question. Such an explanation is particularly necessary in the present case, where petitioner did not appeal from the judgment of conviction and, despite ten previous attacks upon its validity,