¶1OPINION
¶2Denied post-conviction relief under § 21-1-1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1967), defendant appeals. He contends that evidence was erroneously admitted at his trial because seized without a valid search warrant. The circumstances of this asserted illegal seizure were known to defendant at his trial. Accordingly, the question of use of illegally seized evidence is not a cognizable issue under § 21-1-1(93), supra. State v. Barton, 79 N.M. 70, 439 P.2d 719 (1968) ; State v. Fines, 78 N.M. 737, 437 P.2d 1006 (1968).
¶3Although defendant may not obtain a review of the seizure issue in a post-conviction proceeding, a companion case, which was a direct appeal, decided the issue on its merits. State v. Sedillo, 79 N.M. 289, 442 P.2d 601 (1968).
¶4The order denying relief is affirmed.
¶5It is so ordered.