People v. Smith

GOODELL, J.

Appellant filed, in the court in which he had been tried, a motion to set aside and vacate judgment, which is in the nature of a petition for a writ of error

coram nobis.

On its denial he appealed. Respondent moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant’s motion had raised no substantial issue. Both the appeal and the motion to dismiss it were submitted on the same record.

On December 6, 1947, appellant was arrested in Palo Alto and charged with the theft of an automobile. After a preliminary hearing an information was filed charging him under section 503 Vehicle Code. He was tried before a jury, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary. There was no motion for a new trial, and no appeal from the judgment.

At the trial appellant was represented by counsel appointed by the court. When appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment was presented in the trial court he was represented by a different attorney, who now represents him herein.

When the motion came before the trial court appellant’s counsel stated the points set forth in the petition, amplified by argument; the district attorney replied; the court denied the motion from the bench, and a minute order was entered.

“In this state a motion to vacate a judgment in the nature of a petition for

coram nobis

is a remedy of narrow scope. [Citations.] Its purpose is to secure relief, where no other remedy exists, from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if the trial court had known it and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not then known to the court. [Citations.] The applicant for the writ ‘must show that the facts upon which he relies were not known to him and could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered by him at any time substantially earlier than the time of his motion for the writ; otherwise he has stated no ground for relief.’

(People

v.

Shorts

(1948), 32 Cal.2d 502, 513 [197 P.2d 330].)”

(People

v.