People v. Bailey

California Court of Appeal Jun 26, 1951 No. Crim. 831Published

Before: Mussell

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant failed to meet his burden of producing convincing proof to support his allegations of fraud, duress, and misrepresentation, and that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying the petition.

Issues

Whether the appellant established sufficient grounds to vacate a judgment via a writ of error coram nobis based on claims of coerced guilty plea.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's request for personal attendance at the hearing.
Whether the trial court was required to accept the appellant's verified allegations as true in the absence of contradictory evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The defendant then, if he would set aside such judgment, must proceed as one who is at least prima facie guilty; he, now, is the attacker and has the burden of producing convincing proof of a fact which constitutes a legal ground”

“The allegations in the motion as to the claimed fraud, deceit, duress and misrepresentations are not specific and are merely appellant’s conclusions.”

“a trial judge is not required to accept as true the sworn testimony of a witness even in the absence of evidence contradicting it, and this rule applies to an affidavit.”

MUSSELL, J.

On August 20, 1949, the appellant filed a “Motion in the Nature of the Writ of Error Coram Nobis” in the Superior Court of Fresno County, in which he sought an order of the court vacating the judgment rendered against him on May 13, 1948, on the ground that he was forced to plead guilty .through fraud, deceit, duress and misrepresentation. It was stated in the motion, which was verified by the appellant, that he “was advised by different persons, including officials of the court, warning him that if he did not plead guilty and was convicted, he would be sentenced to life in prison as a habitual criminal”; that at that time he was “not familiar with section 644 of the Penal Code and believed that he could be sentenced as an habitual criminal”; that he was “later confined in solitary confinement which was a denial of due process of law in obtaining a conviction of duress”; that he would “present witnesses in this court by process of subpoena that he was threatened with the habitual criminal sentence if he did not plead guilty”'; and that he was “not

[152]

in the vicinity where the alleged crime was committed at the time it was alleged to have been committed.”

The trial court, at the request of appellant, appointed two attorneys to represent him in the matter of his petition. Appellant then filed a “Petition for Hearing on Writ of Coram Nobis,” in which he stated that he had received a letter from the district attorney’s office in Fresno county advising that the writ would be denied unless further proof and support of the allegations in the writ were given, and that something more was required than a sworn statement by the defendant. In this connection, the petition contains the following language : “In the opinion of petitioner it is neither proper nor necessary that the district attorney be given these additional documents of proof whereas the petitioner has stated in what the alleged illegality consists in the writ being verified by oath.” The petitioner then prayed that an order be directed to the warden at the state prison at Folsom to produce and deliver petitioner at the hearing.

Appellant filed an “Affidavit for Subpoenas” in which he asked that certain persons, be subpoenaed to testify in his behalf. The trial court set the hearing, and ordered that the matter be submitted on the basis of affidavits and denied the request of the petitioner for personal attendance at the hearing.

People v. Bailey

AI Brief

MUSSELL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief