People v. Fowler

California Court of Appeal Dec 4, 1959 No. Crim. 3674Published

Before: Bray

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the denial of the defendant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis was proper because the defendant failed to state valid grounds for relief, was not entitled to counsel in such civil proceedings, and was not entitled to the benefit of subsequent statutory amendments.

Issues

Did the superior court err in failing to state grounds for its denial of the petition for writ of error coram nobis?
Was defendant deprived of constitutional rights in that he was denied the aid of counsel in this proceeding and was not present or represented at the hearing?
Did defendant state any grounds for relief?
Does amendment of section 644, Penal Code, removing conviction of violation of the Deadly Weapons Act as a basis for adjudication of habitual criminal affect the prior adjudication of habitual criminal?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“There is no requirement that the latter court must give written grounds in support of its decisions.”

“Obviously a coram nobis proceeding is not a criminal prosecution to which the fundamental constitutional rights to counsel apply.”

“A defendant who has violated a penal statute is not entitled to benefits arising from subsequent amendments ameliorating the punishment.”

[810]

BRAY, P. J.

Defendant in propria persona appeals from an order denying his petition for a writ of error

coram nobis.

In 1944 defendant pleaded guilty to violation of section 211, Penal Code (first degree robbery), and to violation of section 2, chapter 339, Stats. 1923 (the Deadly Weapons Act, now section 12021, Penal Code, possession of concealed weapon by one convicted of a felony). He admitted three prior convictions of robbery. November 10, 1944, he was sentenced to the state prison for the term prescribed by law for each offense, the terms to run consecutively. The court also determined him to be a habitual criminal. In all those proceedings he was represented by a deputy public defender.

1. Did the superior court err in failing to state grounds for its denial of the petition for writ of error

coram nobis ? No.

Defendant relies upon article YI, section 2, California Constitution, for his contention that it was the duty of the trial court to state in writing the grounds of its decision. That section deals with the Supreme Court and not the superior court. There is no requirement that the latter court must give written grounds in support of its decisions.

2. Was defendant deprived of constitutional rights in that he was denied the aid of counsel in this proceeding and was not present or represented at the hearing

No.

Article I, section 13, of the Constitution, provides in part that in criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend with counsel. Obviously a

coram nobis

proceeding is not a criminal prosecution to which the fundamental constitutional rights to counsel apply. “. . . a motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis is a civil proceeding.”

(People

People v. Fowler

AI Brief

BRAY, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief