People v. Hough

THE COURT.

This is an appeal from an order denying a petition for a writ of error

coram nobis,

by which petition defendant sought to have vacated the judgments and sentences of death previously entered upon his pleas of guilty to two counts of murder as charged in an amended indictment.

[619]

The extreme penalty had been imposed after the trial court had taken evidence to determine the degree of the crimes and to fix the punishment, and the judgments had been affirmed on appeal.

(People

v.

Hough,

24 Cal.2d 535 [150 P.2d 444].) During the pendency of said appeal, defendant filed in this court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus contending that the judgments of conviction were illegal and violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and deprived him of his life without due process of law. After giving full consideration to defendant’s claims, including the claim that his pleas of guilty were secured and induced by improper and illegal means which allegedly rendered his conviction void and of no legal effect, this court denied the relief sought by defendant in said habeas corpus proceeding.

(In re Hough,

24 Cal.2d 522 [150 P.2d 448].) Defendant thereupon filed a petition in the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari, which was denied.

(Hough

v.

People of State of California,

323 U.S. 780 [65 S.Ct. 192, 89 L.Ed.-].)

An examination of defendant’s petition for a writ of error

coram nobis,

which was thereafter filed in the trial court, shows that he was seeking relief upon the same grounds which he had previously urged in this court on the habeas corpus proceeding. Before any evidence was taken in the trial court in support of the petition, respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding upon the ground that all matters alleged in the petition had been considered and determined by this court in the habeas corpus proceeding. The trial court denied the motion, stating “The man’s life is at stake, and I feel constrained to proceed.” Defendant was then given the widest latitude in presenting evidence in support of his petition. At the conclusion of the evidence offered by defendant, respondent again moved to dismiss the petition. This motion was denied and respondent presented its evidence. After argument and a consideration of all the evidence, the trial court denied the petition. It is argued by respondent that the trial court should have granted the motions to dismiss the proceeding, but it is unnecessary to decide that question. The trial court considered the petition on the merits, without reference to the doctrine of res ad judicata,, and we are satisfied that its order denying the petition upon the merits must be affirmed.