Charles B. Langford, defendant in person.
Emmet J. Lynch, District Attorney (
George W. Stroebel, Jr., of counsel), for plaintiff.
he was over nineteen years of age. On the date of imposition of judgment and sentence, which was the 17th day of February, 1944, there was no statute applicable to the facts, neither of the Grand Jury nor the court to guide or direct the procedure thereof. The criminal statute must be strictly construed and no other interpretation seems to be applicable thereto. Further, to set back the date of the determinative age thereof, would open the door in the administration of the criminal law, to chaos and extra litigation. Further, a law which modifies our increased or decreased punishment of crime, if enacted, would be classified as an ex post facto law, which both Federal and State Constitutions prohibit, and therefore the Legislature could not have intended the interpretation which defendant petitioner so zealously argues in his brief. This defendant has been incarcerated now almost to the due date of his release and apparently, if of good behavior, would have been previously released. It appears to this court that he is grossly guilty of laches in not previously making an application. In any event, not only for the reasons set forth herein but for the further reason that defendant petitioner alleges that no fraud, misrepresentation or deceit was perpetrated by and on behalf of or through any of the channels of this court, he is not entitled to a writ of error
coram nobis and to a hearing before this court. Submit order.