People v. Baker

California Court of Appeal Jun 27, 1949 No. Crim. 722Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a writ of error coram nobis cannot be used to relitigate issues that could have been raised on a motion for a new trial or on appeal, nor can it be granted based on newly discovered evidence when the petitioner fails to show diligence.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying a petition for a writ of error coram nobis based on claims of insufficient evidence, inconsistent testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Whether newly discovered evidence regarding handwriting experts justifies the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis.
Whether the defendant was entitled to a personal hearing on his motion for a writ of error coram nobis.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is well settled that the writ here relied upon cannot be employed for the purpose of securing what amounts to a second opportunity for a review, under such circumstances.”

“Not only is it a general rule that this writ will not be granted on the ground of newly discovered evidence going to the merits of the issues tried”

“it is well settled that a showing of diligence is necessary in order to make available the relief here sought.”

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant was charged with the crime of “Forgery of Endorsement” in violation of section 470 of the Penal Code, it being alleged that he had with fraudulent intent forged the name of one Keister upon the back of a certain check and had uttered and passed this check thus forged with the intent to cheat and defraud certain individuals and corporations. A prior conviction of forgery was also charged.

At the trial on November 29, 1943, ample evidence of guilt was presented. The appellant, who was represented by counsel, admitted the prior conviction and introduced the testimony of three witnesses, including himself. Counsel argued the case and a verdict of guilty was returned by the jury.

On December 3, 1943, the matter came on for judgment and the defendant appeared with his counsel. When the defendant insisted that he had not signed the name of Keister to this check the court called for the exhibits and remarked: “Very snrely a resemblance from my inspection of these two signatures. They surely look alike to me, but of course I am no handwriting expert.” Counsel for defendant stated that a handwriting expert, Mr. Sellers, had made an examination of this check and specimens of the defendant’s handwriting and stated that he could not say “whether it was or was not Mr. Baker’s writing.” Defendant confirmed this, and further stated that “a fellow by the name of Harris looked at the handwriting and said it wasn’t me.” The judge then stated that since the defendant was not eligible for probation he wanted to be fair and give him every “break” possible, and that he was going to ask a man from the police department to examine the exhibits. The matter was continued until December 6, 1943, when the man from the police department appeared and testified at length as to the similarities between the questioned writing and specimens of the defendant’s handwriting. After remarking that he was satisfied that the defendant had thus cashed the check the judge

[625]

proceeded to pronounce .judgment. No motion for a new trial was made and no appeal was taken.

Five years later, on December 13, 1948, the defendant filed a petition in the superior court for a writ of error

coram nobis,

People v. Baker

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief