People v. Tucker

[361]

MOORE, P. J.

This appeal is from the order denying an “extra ordinary motion to annul, vacate, and set aside judgment, forthwith” on the ground that the trial court erred in summarily denying appellant’s motion.

The grounds alleged in the motion were:

(1) “The verdict is coerced, unfounded on fact, contrary to law and evidence”;

(2) “Prejudicial misconduct of the Prosecuting Attorney during the proceedings of the improperly conducted trial”;

(3) “Applicant was excluded from his federal statutory constitutional right to have a fair trial”;

(4) “He was denied his right to have witnesses and evidence favorable to him, with many other combinations of chronic, compounded denials of due process of law, guaranteed to him under the Federal Constitution”;

(5) “The Prosecution heaped upon him four different felony convictions that don’t exist in law or fact against him”;

(6) “Appellant in this case was forced to become a witness against himself which, as long as the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution stands, states that no defendant in criminal prosecution is compelled to become a witness against himself, as has been done in this case against him.”

Appellant averred no proof of his claims. Not one of his charges comes within the scope of an application for writ of error

coram nobis.

A

coram nobis

motion is to bring to the attention of the trial court errors of fact which, without negligence on the part of the defendant, were not presented to the court at the trial. The motion was never intended as a device to correct an error of law or to repair an irregularity occurring at the trial which could be corrected on motion for a new trial or by an appeal.

(People

v.