People v. O'NEAL

KAUFMAN, P. J.

On May 3, 1960, the appellants, Lymon Darrell O’Neal and Howard Lee Goose, were jointly charged with the theft of a motor vehicle in violation of section 484 of the Penal Code. On May 9,1960, both, with counsel, waived reading of the information, entered pleas of guilty, waived probation, and requested immediate sentencing. The judgment and sentence were entered on May 9, 1960. No motion for a new trial was made and no appeal was taken. Over a year later, on November 28,1961, appellants moved to set aside the allegedly void judgment of conviction. The motion was heard and denied on December 4,1961. Both appeal in propria persona from the order denying their motion.

Appellants’ motion to set aside the judgment, while including within its scope the area of a petition for writ of error

coram nobis,

is more inclusive, as in addition to serving the purposes of the writ, it will lie where the judgment is void on its face

(People

v.

Ramirez,

139 Cal.App. 380 [33 P.2d 848]).

Appellants contend that the judgment is void because the trial court erred by: 1) failing to read the information to them; 2) knowingly appointing incompetent counsel; 3) failing to determine the degree of the crime; 4) failing to set a date for sentencing; 5) unconstitutionally depriving them of their right to a jury trial; and 6) that section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure unconstitutionally sets a time limit on the

[709]

motion to vacate a judgment. There is no merit to any of these contentions nor is it necessary for us to discuss them in detail, as the record contravenes each contention, and completely supports the judgment rendered. Appellants knowingly, with their counsel present, properly waived reading of the information

(People

v.

Jones,

52 Cal.2d 636 [343 P.2d 577]), and entered pleas of guilty, thus admitting every element of the offense and waiving a jury trial