People v. Crawford

California Court of Appeal Dec 23, 1959 No. Crim. 3658Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to vacate judgment, holding that the motion, treated as a petition for writ of error coram nobis, failed because the claims were either unsupported by the record, involved errors of law not cognizable in coram nobis, or lacked the required due diligence.

Issues

Whether the defendant was wrongfully induced to enter a guilty plea or denied the aid of counsel.
Whether the defendant was properly informed of the charges and taken before a magistrate within the statutory time limit.
Whether the trial court erred in setting the degree of the crime upon a plea of guilty.
Whether the claims raised are cognizable in a proceeding for a writ of error coram nobis.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The writ lies only to correct errors of fact, not errors of law.”

“It must be pointed out that all of appellant’s contentions of error on appeal relate to errors of law which could have been raised on appeal from the judgment and cannot now later be urged via coram nobis.”

KAUFMAN, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order denying defendant’s motion to vacate a final judgment of conviction. Appellant contends that his motion should have been granted because he was wrongfully induced to enter a plea of guilty; he was denied aid of counsel; he was not informed of the charge against him; he was not taken before a magistrate within the time limit of section 825 of the Penal Code; and the court improperly set the degree of the crime at robbery in the first degree.

The record reveals the following facts: On July 6, 1956, the appellant was arrested in Fresno, California, by Officer Locke of the San Pablo Police as a robbery suspect and a parole violator. The appellant was taken to San Pablo jail on the following day. On July 11th, Officer Locke signed a complaint accusing three persons (none of whom was the appellant) and one John Doe of armed robbery. On July 13, 1956, one of the appellant’s accomplices made a statement implicating the appellant as the driver of the car involved in the robbery. On the same day, according to his own testimony, the appellant was visited by an attorney and informed him of all the details of the case.

The magistrate of the Municipal Court of the city of Richmond certified that after the filing of the complaint, the appellant and three others appeared before him, and that he delivered a copy of the complaint to them and informed them of their right to the aid of counsel. Thereafter, the appellant with counsel appeared before the magistrate who read the complaint to them. On July 26th, the appellant, accompanied by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to robbery in the first degree.

On July 30, 1956, in the Superior Court of Contra Costa County, the appellant, accompanied by counsel, was informed of the complaint against him, of his arraignment and plea of guilty. The appellant having no legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced, the court rendered its judgment of

[567]

guilty on July 30, 1956. No appeal from the judgment was taken.

On November 3, 1958, the appellant, through his counsel, filed a motion to vacate judgment and sentence. On December 22,1958, the court denied his petition for a writ of prohibition and granted a hearing on the motion to vacate. On January 27, 1959, the motion was denied. This appeal was filed on February 5, 1959.

People v. Crawford

AI Brief

KAUFMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief