In Re Roberts

California Court of Appeal Feb 7, 1962 No. Crim. 3320Published

Before: Schottky

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A court has the inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records nunc pro tunc to ensure they reflect the truth, and this power is not suspended by the pendency of habeas corpus proceedings.

Issues

Whether a justice court judge has the authority to correct docket entries nunc pro tunc to reflect that a defendant was advised of their legal rights.
Whether the correction of clerical errors in court records violates a defendant's right to due process.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A court of general jurisdiction has power after final judgment and regardless of lapse of time to correct clerical errors or misprisions in its records, whether made by the clerk, counsel or the court itself”

“This inherent power of the court is not suspended by the pendency of an appeal or a habeas corpus proceeding.”

SCHOTTKY, J.

This is a petition by Carl A. Roberts and Robert L. Nellessen for a writ of habeas corpus to secure their release from the county jail of Tehama County where each is

[96]

presently serving a term of imprisonment after judgments of conviction of petty theft were imposed by the Justice Court for the Red Bluff Judicial District.

Each was tried and convicted in the justice court by the court sitting without a jury for the crime of petty theft. No appeal was taken from the judgments of conviction.

On December 13, 1961, petitioners herein sought to obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the Superior Court of Tehama County, alleging that the convictions were obtained in violation of their constitutional rights. A writ of habeas corpus was issued returnable on December 15, 1961. A return was filed by the sheriff and several hearings were held in the matter. On December 18, 1961, the superior court remanded the matter to the justice court for further proceedings to establish the docket and record of the proceedings in the lower court. This was done, and on December 20, 1961, the record of such proceedings was transmitted to the superior court. After a further hearing in the superior court on December 21, 1961, the writ of habeas corpus was discharged and petitioners remanded to the custody of the sheriff.

Petitioners each contend they are illegally confined in that at their arraignment in the justice court they were not advised of their legal rights (i.e., right to counsel, right to a continuance, right to trial by jury, right to a speedy trial, right to time to prepare for trial, right to compulsory process); that they did not waive such rights and although a purported trial was had that no finding of guilt was made by the justice court; and that they were ordered confined in the county jail of Tehama County.

It appears from the record that on December 13, 1961, they filed an application for habeas corpus in the superior court which was issued returnable December 15, 1961. On December 14, 1961, the judge of the justice court made an order correcting the docket entries

nunc pro time

In Re Roberts

AI Brief

SCHOTTKY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief