People v. Tate

[32]

WHITE, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for a writ of error

coram nobis.

In an information filed on October 26; 1953, in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, appellant herein was charged (Count I) with burglary (Pen. Code, § 459), (Count II) grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 3), and (Count III) violation of section 503 of the Motor Vehicle Code (automobile theft). He was tried on January 21st and 27th, 1954. The evidence presented at such trial consisted of the transcript of appellant’s preliminary examination, testimony of witnesses for the prosecution, and the testimony of appellant himself. 'The trial judge found appellant guilty of the offense charged in Count III of the information, that is, violation of section 503 of the Vehicle Code, and also found that two prior felony convictions alleged in the information were true. Appellant was found not guilty under Counts I and II. Motion for a new trial was denied and a state prison sentence imposed. No appeal was taken.

Thereafter, on November 26, 1954, appellant filed in the trial court a petition seeking a writ of error

coram nobis,

in which petition it was alleged that certain evidence favorable to appellant was suppressed by the Los Angeles Police Department, and that a police officer who- appeared as a witness for the prosecution committed perjury. There was also presented with the petition an affidavit of one John S. Branch, an inmate, with appellant, at Folsojn State Prison, wherein skid Branch avers that he had committed the crime for which appellant was convicted and that prior to the trial of appellant said Branch confessed the commission of said crime to investigating officers of the Los Angeles Police Department. On December 6, 1954 appellant’s petition for a writ of error

coram nobis

was called for hearing in the superior court. Appellant was not present or represented. No evidence was taken, no counteraffidavit to that of' Branch was presented, and the court entered its order denying the petition. It is from this order that appellant prosecutes this appeal.