People v. Maria

California Court of Appeal Sep 26, 1955 No. Crim. 3116Published

Before: Dooling

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the petition for writ of error coram nobis because the allegations were insufficient to raise triable issues of fact and the record established that the trial court had proper jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether the Superior Court of Alameda County had jurisdiction over the offenses charged.
Whether the appellant's allegations regarding a concealed notice of appeal were sufficient to warrant relief.
Whether the appellant had an absolute right to be present at the hearing of his petition.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“These facts were sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the three offenses on Alameda County.”

“The other allegations of the petition are all mere conclusions of the pleader and no good purpose would be served in elaborating on their insufficiency to raise any triable issue of fact.”

DOOLING, J.

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts charging the kidnapping of two individuals and to one count charging the robbery of one of them and was sentenced for these offenses by the Superior Court of Alameda County on March 2, 1954. He filed a petition for a writ of error

comm nobis

in the Superior Court of Alameda County on February 3, 1955. This petition was denied on February 9, 1955 and from this order the appeal is taken.

Appellant filed his petition in propria persona and it is replete with conclusions of law. At his request this court appointed counsel to represent him, but there was nothing that counsel could successfully do for him at the appellate level on the record presented. The only allegations that might be held to be allegations of fact are that the court had no jurisdiction of the offenses because they were “pretended to have been committed in another County outside of the jurisdiction of the County of Alameda ...”

The record shows that appellant forcibly compelled his victims to drive him from Alameda County to Madera County where he robbed one of them and returned with the other and the stolen property to Alameda County. These facts were sufficient to confer jurisdiction of the three offenses on Alameda County. (Pen. Code, §§ 781, 784, 786.)

Appellant alleges that “after his conviction he immediately filed his written notice of appeal into the First Appellate District Court of Appeals.” The record shows no notice of appeal on file and appellant now argues that his notice of appeal was delivered to police officers who “concealed it” from the superior court. The variance between the allegation and argument is obvious. The issue now argued was not presented to the trial court by the allegation.

The other allegations of the petition are all mere conclusions of the pleader and no good purpose would be served in elaborating on their insufficiency to raise any triable issue of fact.

The appellant had no absolute right to be present at

[623]

the hearing of his petition.

People v. Maria

AI Brief

DOOLING, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief