People v. Bronaugh

California Court of Appeal Oct 30, 1950 No. Crim. 4485Published

Before: Shinn

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to meet the requirements for a writ of error coram nobis because the alleged errors were known at the time of trial and should have been raised via motion for new trial or appeal, and further held that the defendant failed to state sufficient grounds for habeas corpus relief.

Issues

Whether the defendant is entitled to a writ of error coram nobis for alleged trial errors known at the time of judgment.
Whether the defendant is entitled to relief via habeas corpus regarding claims of delayed judgment, denial of a speedy trial, and the use of perjured testimony.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“he has not proved that facts existed which could not in the exercise of due diligence have been proved at the trial, and which, if known then, would have precluded the judgment from being entered.”

“All the matters set forth were known to the defendant at the time of trial and should have been raised on motion for new trial or an appeal from the judgment, or both.”

“Habeas corpus may not serve as a substitute for an appeal.”

SHINN, P. J.

Defendant, Forrest Bronaugh, was convicted of the crimes of forcible rape, and burglary with intent to commit rape. Judgment was entered on November 7, 1946. The present case purports to arise as an appeal from an order denying a petition for writ of error

coram nobis.

Before discussing the contentions made by defendant, or the nature of his remedy, if any he has, it appears necessary to give a resumé of the procedure in the lower court.

The information was in three counts: Count I charged defendant with the crime of forcible rape; Count II with burglary with intent to commit rape; Count III with assault with a deadly weapon. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to each count, and a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The cause came on for trial on March 5, 1946, at which time Count II was dismissed, and defendant withdrew his insanity plea. After approximately two hours of deliberation, the jury announced its inability to agree and the court declared a mistrial. On March 7, 1946, the retrial was set for April 26th. On April 26th, the district attorney requested a continuance until May 7, 1946. On May 7th, defendant’s motion for dismissal under section 1382 of the Penal Code was denied. The second trial took place on May 22d and 23d, 1946, and after one and one-half hours of deliberation, the jury declared its inability to agree and the court again declared a mistrial. The third trial was completed on September 23, 1946, at which time defendant was found guilty as charged. The jury was polled and all answered in the affirmative. Pronouncement of judgment and sentence was set for September 27, 1946.

[222]

Evidently on this date -application for probation was made by the deputy public defender who requested the matter

“go

over until your honor returns” (from vacation). On November 7, 1946, defendant’s application for probation was denied and he was sentenced for the term prescribed by law, the sentences to run concurrently. No motion for new trial was made and no appeal was taken from the judgment. On November 25, 1949, defendant filed a petition for writ of error

People v. Bronaugh

AI Brief

SHINN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief