People v. Watkins

California Court of Appeal Jun 14, 1949 No. Crim. 4335Published

Before: Wood

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a writ of error coram nobis is unavailable when the petitioner knew the facts at the time of trial, failed to exercise due diligence, or could have raised the issues via a motion for a new trial or appeal.

Issues

Whether a writ of error coram nobis is available when the facts relied upon were known to the petitioner at the time of trial.
Whether claims of inadequate representation or prosecutorial misconduct can be raised in a coram nobis proceeding when they could have been addressed on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A writ of coram nobis should not issue when the facts relied upon for issuance of the writ were known to the petitioner at the time of trial.”

“Appellant’s contention that he was not properly represented by his counsel, in the matter of offering evidence as to self-defense, cannot be considered in a coram nobis proceeding.”

“The ruling of the court denying the petition for the writ was correct.”

WOOD, J.

Appeal from order denying petition for writ of error

coram nobis.

Appellant was convicted of murder of the first degree, and the jury fixed the punishment at life imprisonment. Judgment on the verdict was rendered on May 29, 1946, and no appeal was taken therefrom.

On June 13, 1947, appellant made a motion for a “Writ of Review and Request for a new trial, ’ ’ and on that day the court denied the motion.

On October 18, 1948, appellant filed a petition in the superior court for a writ of error

coram nobis

wherein he asked that the judgment be set aside and a new trial be granted. He alleged in his petition that his counsel, who was appointed

[376]

by the court, refused his request to introduce testimony which would show that appellant shot the deceased in protection of his life and home; and that his counsel neglected to have the court give an instruction as to self-defense and justifiable homicide. He also alleged therein that he could have shown that the deceased was shot in appellant’s home; that the deceased, against appellant’s requests, was repeatedly calling at appellant’s home in his absence and seeking to alienate his wife’s affections; and that the deceased had repeatedly stated he would do bodily harm to appellant if appellant interfered with his announced purpose of separating appellant and his wife. He also alleged therein that the failure to introduce such testimony and to have the court give an instruction as to self-defense and justifiable homicide deprived appellant of a fair trial, his constitutional rights and due process of law. The petition was heard and denied on December 20, 1948.

Since appellant asserts that his counsel refused to ■ offer evidence as to self-defense, which was requested by appellant, it appears that the alleged facts, which he now wants the court to consider on a retrial, were known to him when the case was tried. A writ of

coram nobis

should not issue when the facts relied upon for issuance of the writ were known to the petitioner at the time of trial. An applicant for a writ of

People v. Watkins

AI Brief

WOOD, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief