In Re Croft

California Court of Appeal Oct 18, 1956 No. Crim. 3234Published

Before: Devine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is not entitled to relief from a guilty plea based on a mistake of law by their own counsel where there was no evidence that a responsible state officer had promised a specific sentence or entered into a plea bargain.

Issues

Whether a guilty plea induced by a defense attorney's mistaken representation regarding probation eligibility constitutes a denial of due process.
Whether the petitioner established that a responsible officer of the state promised a specific punishment in exchange for a guilty plea.

Disposition. Writ discharged and petition denied.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The referee’s finding is entitled to great weight.”

“Petitioner cannot be relieved from such a mistake made by his own counsel.”

“this is a very different matter from a mistake of law by counsel who was selected by defendant and who was not acting in collusion with any officer of the state.”

DEVINE, J. pro tem.

Petitioner seeks by writ of habeas corpus to have a judgment and commitment to state prison declared void on the ground that his plea of guilty was induced by a representation by his own counsel that he would receive probation and no more than a county jail sentence, and that this representation was corroborated by acts of the district attorney. It may be noted that petitioner was before this court in an attempt to accomplish the same results he seeks herein on an appeal from an order denying him a writ of

coram nobis. (People

Croft,

134 Cal.App.2d 800 [286 P.2d 479].) In that proceeding he appeared in propria persona and he failed to present in the trial court any affidavits to establish a factual basis for relief, but in this proceeding, his counsel has filed appropriate affidavits.

In affidavits of members of his family, as well as in his own verified petition, it is alleged that, while petitioner was ready to proceed to trial, his attorney (not the counsel who repre

[157]

sents Mm in tMs proceeding) told Mm that the judge and the district attorney had promised that he would receive probation and a county jail sentence. Petitioner alleges that he believed this representation and entered his plea of guilty; that the representation of counsel was apparently corroborated by the action of the district attorney, who, just before the plea, replied to the court’s interrogation that he was in accord with petitioner’s counsel and moved to strike the words “with assault to commit murder” from an assault charge, and moved to dismiss charges against petitioner’s brother. Petitioner contends that by tests set forth in the case of

People

Gilbert,

25 Cal.2d 422, 433 [154 P.2d 657], he is entitled to relief if he can establish (1) an unqualified assertion by his attorney to petitioner that a responsible officer of the state had agreed to a certain maximum punishment in return for a plea of guilty; (2) an apparent corroboration of that assertion by an officer of the state, and (3) reliance by petitioner on the assertion and the apparent corroboration.

In Re Croft

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief