The Pennsylvania Superior Court has rejected a post-conviction appeal by a truck driver who is serving a life sentence for a Centre County murder that was committed nearly three decades ago.

In his latest appeal, James R. Cruz, 64, now serving a life sentence at the State Correctional Institution at Fayette, sought a retrial based on newly discovered evidence that the defense claims called into question hair samples submitted during his trial that allegedly linked him to the victim.

The victim was 17-year-old Dawn Birnbaum, who in March 1993 had run away from the Elan School in Poland Spring, Maine.

Police were told that she was seen at a truck stop and that she had gotten into a truck in Maine.

Her body was found on March 23, 1993, in a snowbank along an I-80 ramp near Bellefonte in Centre County.

Police used fuel receipts from the truck stops in Maine and Pennsylvania to pinpoint Cruz as a suspect.

Police also were able to link his rig to the scene of the crime due to tire tracks found near the body.

A search of his rig yielded hair evidence found in the truck and on the body of the victim to tie him to the murder.

The investigation further revealed that Cruz had falsified his travel logs to indicate he was in Altoona on March 23.

Also, his DNA was found on the victim and on her underwear.

The Innocence Project in its investigation of the case was able to determine that an FBI agent who reviewed the hair evidence found in the cab of Cruz’s truck and on a rope found around the victim’s neck had at times “exceeded the scientific limitation of microscopic hair analysis.”

The assessment was the result of a view of the agent’s work by the Department of Justice.

Based on this after-discovered evidence, Cruz appealed his conviction.

Centre County Judge Jonathan D. Grine, who presided over the post-trial appeal, dismissed it without a hearing.

In an opinion issued Thursday by Superior Court Judges Jack A. Panella, Victor P. Stabile and Alice B. Dubow, the appeals court upheld Grine’s handling of the case.

Grine contended that the Cruz appeal was untimely.

There are exceptions that will permit an untimely appeal, including the possibility that the defense challenge to the evidence would result in a different outcome — in this case a not guilty verdict.

Cruz, through his attorney Steven Paul Trialonas of State College, contended there was a genuine issue of fact surrounding the hair evidence, based on the Department of Justice report.

The Superior Court, however, concluded that the hair evidence was but one piece of evidence presented during the seven-day trial.

The opinion explained that nearly 50 witnesses testified and that there was “ample evidence,” including Cruz’s DNA found on the victim’s body and her underwear, to uphold the jury’s verdict of murder.

The court also concluded that the FBI agent’s testimony concerning the hair evidence “was thoroughly mitigated by cross-examination.”

In addition, the Superior Court upheld Grine’s conclusion that the after-discovered evidence “would not likely result in a different verdict.”