People v. Sparks

California Court of Appeal Jun 30, 1952 No. Crim. 2813Published

Before: Bray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court properly denied the appellant's motion for trial transcripts because there was no pending proceeding to support the motion and the appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial right to the requested records.

Issues

Whether a trial court has jurisdiction to grant a motion for transcripts when no legal proceeding is pending.
Whether an indigent defendant is entitled to trial transcripts for a potential coram nobis petition without showing a substantial right to the relief sought.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion for the reason that there was no proceeding pending before the court at the time.”

“A motion is not an independent right or remedy . . . but implies the pendency of a suit between the parties”

BRAY, J.

Appellant, with two others, was convicted in 1948 of certain counts of forgery. (Only one of the others appealed. See

People

Robinson,

102 Cal.App.2d 800 [228 P.2d 583].) On October 5, .1951, appellant, in propria persona, filed in the superior court in the original criminal proceeding a “Motion for the Records.” This requested the court to order the clerk to deliver to appellant the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts of the proceedings at the trial, thereby “enabling petitioner to prosecute his cause in a writ

[121]

of Error Coram Nobis.” Accompanying this “motion” were a memorandum of points and authorities and the affidavit of appellant stating that he is confined in the California State Prison at Folsom, and has no funds with which to procure said transcripts. The court denied the motion. Appellant appeals.

No application for a writ of

coram nobis

was filed nor were any grounds presented to the trial court upon which appellant intended to base his application for the writ. On appeal he has set forth in his brief these grounds. It might be pointed out that all of them are matters as to which no reason is shown why they could not have. been raised on appeal and hence coram nobis would not lie.

(People

Coyle,

88 Cal.App.2d 967 [200 P.2d 546].) Therefore, if the court had before it an application for

coram nobis

and had such application contained these grounds only, the court, in the exercise of its discretion, could have refused to order the delivery of the transcripts. (See

People

Coyle, supra,

People v. Sparks

AI Brief

BRAY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief