People v. Hayman

California Court of Appeal Nov 2, 1956 No. Crim. 5684Published

Before: Moore

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a petition for a writ of error coram nobis was properly denied because the petitioner failed to present facts that existed at the time of trial which would have constituted a valid defense, and the writ cannot be used to correct errors of law or as a substitute for an appeal.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
Whether the petitioner's claims regarding his absence during sentencing and lack of notice constitute valid grounds for coram nobis relief.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no legal basis for the petition for a writ of error coram nobis.”

“It is not properly used to correct errors of law or to redress irregularities at the trial that could have been corrected on motion for new trial or by appeal.”

“Neither may the writ of error coram nobis be used for the purposes of appeal because that remedy was lost through failure to invoke it in time without fault on the part of the petitioner.”

MOORE, P. J.

December 23, 1943, Hayman was accused by information (1) of having defrauded Eugene Williams and others October 22, 1943, by forging the name of J. R. Love on the back of a check drawn on the Union Bank and Trust Company in the amount of $49; (2) of having forged the name of Elmo Griffin on the back of a check on the Union Bank and Trust Company in the sum of $13.22; (3) of having forged the name of George Jones on the back of a check October 22, 1943, drawn on the Union Bank and Trust Company in the sum of $68.31. On December 27, 1943, he regularly entered his plea of not guilty as charged in all counts of the information. On February 1, 1944, he withdrew his plea of not guilty and regularly entered his plea of guilty as charged in Count I and filed an application for probation. On February 24 the other counts of the information were dismissed and the court granted him probation for a period of five years on condition that he serve the first six months of his probationary period in the county jail, make reimbursement for all checks he had forged, have no checks or checking account, report regularly to the Probation Department and obey all laws.

On March 11, 1948, the same court entered the following judgment: “Whereas the said defendant, having duly pleaded guilty in this Court of the crime of Forgery op Endorsement, a felony, as charged in Count 1 of the information, other counts having been dismissed, and having been granted probation, and said defendant having violated the terms of his probation, probation heretofore granted is revoked and

“It is Therefore Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the said defendant be punished by imprisonment in the State Prison for the term prescribed by law which sentence is ordered to run consecutively with sentence imposed by the United States Court

“It is further Ordered that the defendant be remanded to the eustodv of the Sheriff of the Countv of Los Aneeles. to

[622]

be by him delivered into the custody of the Director of Corrections at the California State Prison at San Quentin when released by the "United States Authorities.

“Done in open Court this 11th day of March, 1948.”

At the time of sentence the court remarked: “In this case the defendant was charged with a number of forgeries, pleaded guilty to one count and was placed on probation.

People v. Hayman

AI Brief

MOORE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief