People v. Parseghian

California Court of Appeal Jun 19, 1957 No. Crim. 1154Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a motion to vacate a judgment in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis cannot be used to challenge the admissibility of evidence or the effectiveness of counsel, and that claims of inducement to plead guilty by counsel without official concurrence are not valid grounds for such relief.

Issues

Whether a claim of illegal search and seizure is reviewable via a petition for writ of error coram nobis after a guilty plea.
Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is cognizable in a coram nobis proceeding.
Whether allegations of inducement to plead guilty by counsel without official concurrence constitute valid grounds for coram nobis relief.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The fact that evidence was improperly admitted, if such were the case, would be merely an error of law which could not be reviewed on a petition to vacate the judgment or for a writ of coram nobis.”

“It is well settled that the claim that a defendant was induced to enter a plea of guilty by promises made by his counsel without the concurrence of responsible officials, does not constitute a valid ground for relief in a coram nobis proceeding.”

BARNARD, P. J.

The defendant was charged with a violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code (possession of a narcotic, marijuana) and with three prior convictions. Counsel was appointed by the court and the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and stood mute as to the allegations of the prior convictions, whereupon the court ordered a denial entered as to such allegations. Thereafter, by leave of court, the defendant personally and through his counsel withdrew his plea of not guilty, entered a plea of guilty and admitted the prior convictions as alleged in the information. The defendant then applied for probation and the court appointed a psychiatrist to examine the defendant as to his present sanity, and set that matter and the time for pronouncement of judgment for November 10,1955. On that day a report was filed by the court-appointed psychiatrist reporting his finding that the defendant was sane and capable of cooperating with his attorney in the preparation of his defense. The application for probation was denied and the defendant was sentenced to prison for the term prescribed by law. No appeal was taken from that judgment.

On September 28, 1956, the defendant filed a “motion to set aside judgment and withdraw plea” based' on the sole ground that the plea of guilty entered by him “was obtained from him by false promises, duress and extrinsic fraud, because the evidence was obtained by an unlawful search and seizure and was inadmissible evidence,” citing

People

Cahan,

44 Cal.2d 434 [282 P.2d 905]. This was accompanied by an argument to the effect that when he was apprehended his automobile was unlawfully searched when the arresting officers had no warrant and no reason to believe that he was committing a felony or an offense in their presence; that the evidence obtained in this unlawful search and seizure was inadmissible ; and that his court-appointed attorney failed to employ his knowledge of the technicalities of the law in his behalf. A different attorney was appointed by the court to represent the defendant on this motion. The motion was heard on November 5, 1956, and submitted upon the file and record before the court. The court denied the motion and the defendant, in propria persona, appealed from that order.

[3]

People v. Parseghian

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief