People v. Nor Woods

California Court of Appeal Oct 22, 1957 No. Crim. 3290Published

Before: Peters

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the motion to vacate a final judgment was properly denied because the appellant failed to allege facts with particularity and raised issues that were either waived, meritless, or improper for a motion to vacate.

Issues

Whether the appellant's motion to vacate a final judgment sufficiently alleged facts to warrant relief.
Whether claims of trial irregularities and legal errors can be raised in a motion to vacate a final judgment.
Whether the defense of double or triple jeopardy was waived by failure to raise it at trial or on appeal.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Such a petition never lies to correct an error of law, or to redress an irregularity occurring at the trial that could be corrected on appeal.”

“The matter of “double” or “triple” jeopardy was not raised at the time of trial, or on appeal from the judgment of conviction. Such failure constitutes a waiver of the point.”

PETERS, P. J.

Nor Woods petitioned the trial court to annul, vacate, quash and set aside a judgment convicting him of two felonies. The trial court denied the motion, and Nor Woods appeals. This court, upon the request of Nor Woods, on two occasions, appointed attorneys to represent him, hut on both occasions the attorneys were relieved of their assignments upon the request of Nor Woods, and he now appears in propria persona.

Appellant was convicted of feloniously sending forged telegrams in violation of section 474 of the Penal Code. In November, 1950, this court in

People

Nor Woods,

100 Cal.App.2d 281 [223 P.2d 490], unanimously affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court denied a hearing. Since then appellant has attacked this final judgment by filing some 24 original proceedings, 19 of which were petitions for habeas corpus. All were denied. In these, appellant has urged that his attorney concealed evidence at the trial; that his attorney “sold” him out; that he was charged with one crime and convicted of another; that the district attorney used false and perjured testimony; that the court repórter prepared a fraudulent transcript; that he has been subjected to double and perhaps triple jeopardy; and that the prosecutor and trial judge colluded during his trial. The present proceeding to vacate the judgment raises nothing new but rehashes some of the charges that have been considered and rejected in many of these prior proceedings.

Appellant’s motion and briefs are confused and somewhat incoherent. Apparently he seeks to make four points: (1) That he was subjected to triple jeopardy; (2) that he was denied the right to produce numerous witnesses at his trial; (3) that the Adult Authority was biased and guilty of misconduct; and (4) that the prosecutor used perjured testimony to secure his conviction. The motion is full of conclusions, and replete with vague and uncertain charges. It contains few allegations of specific facts. It must be remembered that by this

proceeding

appellant seeks to overturn a final judgment. In such a proceeding, whether it be called a motion to vacate or habeas corpus, we are entitled to and we do require of a

[591]

People v. Nor Woods

AI Brief

PETERS, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief