People v. Pryor

California Court of Appeal Sep 1, 1948 No. Crim. 2527Published

Before: Goodell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court properly denied the petition for a writ of error coram nobis because the appellant failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief within the restricted scope of the writ.

Issues

Whether the appellant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis presented grounds for relief under California law.
Whether the writ of error coram nobis may be used as a substitute for an appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The scope of the writ of error coram nobis is very restricted in this state.”

“For one thing, the writ cannot be used to serve the purpose of an appeal.”

“The appellant has not shown any ground on which the action of the trial court in denying his petition should be disturbed.”

GOODELL, J.

Appellant was accused by an information of the crime of arson, defined by section 447a of the Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty. At the first trial the jury disagreed. An amended information was filed alleging that he had been convicted of a felony in the State of New York in 1926, and of another felony in 1931 and another in 1939 in Michigan, all three of which he admitted. On the second trial he was found guilty. A motion for new trial was denied.

No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction.

Appellant was represented by the public defender.

About a year later he filed in the superior court a petition for a writ of error

coram nobis

and motion to annul, vacate and set aside the judgment, all of which were denied. This appeal was then taken.

In the superior court no evidence was presented. The matter was disposed of on the petition alone. The petition, the minute order denying it, and the notice of appeal, certified by the clerk, constitute the record before us.

[353]

The petition alleges that the judgment is void on its face and that appellant’s imprisonment is in violation of several articles of the federal Constitution. It sets forth what is called a ‘ True statement of facts” containing some of the circumstances surrounding his arrest and what followed thereon, including the actions of the police officers assigned to the case, over a period of four or five days in August, 1946. In this narration there are included what seem to be excerpts from testimony— whether given at the first trial or the second does not appear. Included, also, are copies of letters from three corporations indicating that appellant was employed by them in the Bast at periods when some witness testified he was in California. This is not to prove an alibi (for the letters are not directed to the time of the offense) but apparently to contradict the witness as to appellant’s whereabouts before the time of the offense. The petition also contains a statement of points and authorities. The excerpts of testimony are not legally authenticated

People v. Pryor

AI Brief

GOODELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief