People v. Herod

MUSSELL, J.

In August, 1945, defendant pleaded guilty to robbery and grand theft as charged in an amended information filed in the Superior Court of Fresno County. He admitted six prior felony convictions set forth in the information and was sentenced to the state’s prison as an habitual criminal. On December 28, 1951, defendant filed a petition for a writ of error

coram nobis

in the superior court above named and now appeals from the order denying the writ.

In his “Specifications of Error,” which is a part of his petition, defendant alleged that the “judgment-commitment” of the superior court was erroneous because facts were withheld from the court; that he was denied a fair trial “on the merits of his case by extrinsic causes”; that if some existing facts had been brought to the attention of the court by competent counsel, the rendition of the erroneous judgment would have been prevented; that the facts of his ease were not legally verified; that the alleged prior convictions were not properly authenticated; that he was denied due process of law by trick and device and extrinsic fraud; and that the proceedings leading up to his conviction were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

This appeal is based on two contentions: (1) That defendant was deprived of satisfactory legal representation ; and (2) that the district attorney failed to carry his burden of proof as to the prior felony convictions.

[766]

Defendant’s contention that he was deprived of satisfactory legal representation is not borne out by the record before us, and even if it were, it is well settled that lack of effective aid of counsel cannot be determined in

coram, nobis

proceedings.

(People

v.

James,

99 Cal.App.2d 476, 479 [222 P.2d 117];

People