People v. Cole

California Court of Appeal Jun 24, 1957 No. Crim. 5835Published

Before: Fox

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proof regarding claims of extrinsic fraud and that the writ of error coram nobis cannot be used to address errors of law such as constitutional violations regarding search and seizure.

Issues

Whether the defendant was induced to plead guilty by false promises of probation from his counsel.
Whether the defendant's constitutional rights were violated by an illegal arrest, search, and seizure.
Whether the public defender is an agent of the state subject to the control of the prosecutor.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“To prevail in a coram nobis proceeding a defendant has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of credible evidence that he was deprived of substantial legal rights by extrinsic causes.”

“The writ of error coram nobis never issues to correct an error of law, nor to redress an irregularity occurring at the trial that could be corrected on motion for new trial or by appeal.”

FOX, J.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his application for a writ of error

coram nobis.

Defendant was charged by information with violating see

[73]

tion 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (possession of marijuana) , and with three prior felonies. Although defendant was initially represented by private counsel, such counsel was “relieved” and the public defender was appointed to represent the defendant.

On March 30, 1956, defendant entered a plea of guilty, admitted the second and third prior convictions, as alleged, but denied the first alleged prior, which was later stricken in the interest of justice. On April 20th probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to the state prison. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

In his application to vacate and set aside the judgment defendant makes two contentions: (1) that he was induced to enter a plea of guilty by reason of the advice of his counsel that “he [the deputy public defender] had it fixed with the district attorney” that upon a plea of guilty defendant would be granted probation, thus preventing the revocation of his parole; and (2) that the judgment was the direct result of arrest, search and seizure in violation of his constitutional rights. Neither of these grounds justifies a reversal.

The pertinent legal principles relative to the scope and function of the writ of error

coram nobis

were recently stated by this court in

People

Flores,

147 Cal.App.2d 243, 246 [305 P.2d 90]: “ ‘The office of that writ is to bring the attention of the court to such facts as existed at the time of the trial that would have constituted a valid defense, but which, without negligence on the part of the defendant, were not presented, either through duress, fraud or excusable mistake and which, not appearing on the face of the record, would have effected an acquittal of the petitioner or, at least, have caused a more favorable judgment to be entered against him [citations].’ There is a strong presumption that the judgment is correct. [Citations.] To prevail in a

People v. Cole

AI Brief

FOX, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief