People v. Carroll

California Court of Appeal Apr 1, 1957 No. Crim. 5801Published

Before: White

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a writ of error coram nobis is unavailable to challenge a judgment where the alleged error could have been addressed via a motion for a new trial or direct appeal, and where the petitioner failed to demonstrate diligence in seeking relief.

Issues

Whether a writ of error coram nobis is the appropriate remedy to challenge an habitual criminal adjudication based on prior convictions.
Whether the petitioner demonstrated sufficient diligence in waiting over 24 years to file the petition.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The writ of error coram nolis never issues to correct an error of law, nor to redress an irregularity occurring at the trial that could be corrected on motion for new trial or by appeal.”

“In the absence of such showing the court below was obliged to deny the petition for that writ”

WHITE, P. J.

Appellant John Carroll appeals from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying his petition for a writ of error

coram nobis.

The record herein reflects that in 1931 an amended information was filed by the District Attorney of Los Angeles County wherein appellant Carroll and one Joseph Evans were accused of the crime of robbery. As to appellant herein, four prior felony convictions were alleged, as follows: burglary in the county of Los Angeles in October, 1923; grand theft in Los Angeles in October, 1923; burglary, third degree, and larceny in the District Court of the State of Kansas, County of Johnson on September 14, 1917; and breaking jail, a felony, in the District Court of the State of Kansas, in and for the County of Johnson, on September 13, 1917. As to each prior felony conviction alleged, it was also charged that appellant served a term of imprisonment therefor in a penal institution.

Appellant was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty. Following a trial by jury, appellant Carroll and de

[640]

fendant Evans were found guilty of robbery as charged and it was found to be robbery in the first degree. The court found appellant to be an habitual criminal and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison at Folsom for the term prescribed by law for the crime of robbery of the first degree with prior convictions of burglary, grand theft, burglary, third degree, and larceny and breaking jail.

Judgment was entered October 19, 1931.

It appears that no appeal was taken from the judgment and appellant does not contend to the contrary.

Almost 25 years later,

on August 28, 1956, appellant Carroll filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County a document denominated by him as “For the Writ of Error Coram Nobis” and in which he averred that “the prior convictions for which he was adjudged an habitual criminal do not embrace the intendment of the Legislature as defined under Section 644(b) of Penal Code.” In support of his contention appellant argues that, “Said prior convictions, (see Exhibit (A) of case No. 45674) do not as of now, constitute an Habitual Criminal as defined under Section 644(b) of the 1949 California Penal Code; under said Section one must serve three or more Sentences separately, see

People v. Carroll

AI Brief

WHITE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief