People v. Bagasol

California Court of Appeal Aug 18, 1937 No. Crim. 1965Published

Before: Knight

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was precluded from challenging his conviction through a writ of coram nobis or motion to vacate because he failed to raise his objections during his arraignment or via direct appeal, and further found that the alleged procedural irregularities did not prejudice the defendant's substantial rights.

Issues

Whether a defendant may challenge a conviction via coram nobis or motion to vacate for procedural irregularities not raised at arraignment or on appeal.
Whether the magistrate's failure to read the complaint a second time or other alleged procedural errors invalidated the plea of guilty.
Whether the defendant was denied the right to counsel during the preliminary examination and subsequent plea.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It would seem, therefore, as contended by the People, that defendant was precluded afterwards from raising any objections thereto through the medium of either of the proceedings instituted by him subsequent to the imposition of sentence.”

“the failure so to do cannot be said to have deprived defendant of any substantial right, nor to have operated to his prejudice; nor can it be held to have constituted a material noncompliance with the requirements of the statute.”

“It is evident, therefore, that since the imposition of sentence has not resulted in a miscarriage of justice, no ground for reversal is established.”

KNIGHT, J.

Defendant appeals from orders denying his petition for a writ of

coram nobis

and his motion to set aside a judgment of conviction and sentence for the crime

[329]

of forgery, after having pleaded guilty to the crime before a committing magistrate.

The petition and the motion were based on alleged irregularities in conducting the preliminary examination and in certifying the ease to the superior court. None of said irregularities were called to the attention of the superior court when defendant was arraigned therein, or at any time prior to the imposition of sentence; nor was there an appeal taken from the judgment of conviction. It would seem, therefore, as contended by the People, that defendant was precluded afterwards from raising any objections thereto through the medium of either of the proceedings instituted by him subsequent to the imposition of sentence.

(People

Russell,

139 Cal. App. 417 [34 Pac. (2d) 203] ;

People

Calhoun,

9 Cal. App. (2d) 97 [48 Pac. (2d) 754];

People

Howard,

7 Cal. App. (2d) 283 [46 Pac. (2d) 268];

People

Lawyer,

11 Cal. App. (2d) 718 [54 Pac. (2d) 747].)

However, we have examined the record and are satisfied that even though the objections defendant now urges had been seasonably made, the superior court would not have been warranted in sustaining them. They are founded on the provisions of section 8 of article I of the state Constitution and section 859a of the Penal Code, which provide in substance that if the offense charged is a felony not punishable with death, the magistrate shall “immediately upon the appearance of counsel for the defendant” read the complaint to the defendant and ask him whether he pleads guilty to the offense charged therein; that thereupon or at any time thereafter when his counsel is present the defendant may with the consent of the magistrate and the district attorney plead guilty, and upon such plea the magistrate shall immediately commit the defendant to the custody of the sheriff and certify the case “including a copy of all proceedings therein” and such testimony as in his discretion he may require to be taken, to the superior court. And in addition to the foregoing provisions the code section declares that said “section shall not be construed to authorize the receiving of a plea of guilty from any. defendant not represented by counsel”.

People v. Bagasol

AI Brief

KNIGHT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief