People v. Mendez

California Court of Appeal Sep 18, 1956 No. Crim. 5630Published

Before: Fourt

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 is a remedy of narrow scope that does not lie for errors of law or issues cognizable on appeal, and the trial court properly denied the motion without a hearing where the defendant failed to state valid grounds or provide supporting proof.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment without a hearing.
Whether the defendant's claims regarding illegal search, ineffective counsel, and insufficiency of evidence are cognizable in a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It is well settled that such relief does not lie for errors cognizable by appeal from the judgment or order denying a motion for a new trial.”

“The defendant did not state any ground for the setting aside of the judgment or produce any proof of any fact constituting legal ground for setting aside the judgment or for the writ of error coram nobis.”

FOURT, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to annul, vacate and set aside a judgment.

In an information filed by the district attorney of Los Angeles county, the defendant was charged with violation of section 11500 of the Health and Safety Code and it was alleged that on or about October 13, 1954, defendant had in his possession a preparation of heroin. Four prior convictions were also alleged in the information. Defendant was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty and denied the prior convictions as alleged. Thereafter, the defendant, the district attorney and defense counsel waived trial by jury, and by stipulation the People’s case was submitted on the preliminary transcript. Exhibits were introduced and the defendant testified in his own behalf. When the matter was submitted, the court adjudged the defendant guilty as charged. It was stipulated that the prior convictions could be determined from the probation report.

[502]

Subsequently, the first and second priors having been dismissed, the third and fourth priors (violations of the Deadly Weapons Control Act and the State Narcotic Act) were found to be true. Probation was denied and defendant was sentenced to the state prison for the term prescribed by law. Judgment was entered January 14, 1955. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

On or about August 2, 1955, a motion to annul, vacate and set aside the judgment was filed.

The defendant stated that the grounds for the motion were: (1) that the trial court violated defendant’s constitutional rights when it sanctioned and failed to “provide relief for the police action of forcefully, illegally, and without warranty, breaking-in the door, entering and searching petitioner’s domicile”; (2) that the court denied defendant “due process and equal protection of law” when it “convicted the petitioner without proving the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt”; and (3) that defendant was denied due process and equal protection by not being represented by or having effective and adequate legal counsel.

On August 3, 1955, the motion to annul, vacate and set aside the judgment was denied. There were other proceedings taken and disposed of in

People v. Mendez

AI Brief

FOURT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief