People v. Jackson

California Court of Appeal Nov 17, 1958 No. Crim. 3516Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for a writ of error coram nobis because the issues raised could have been addressed on direct appeal and the petitioner failed to establish extrinsic causes for his claims.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
Whether claims regarding trial delay and insufficiency of evidence are cognizable via a writ of error coram nobis.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The purpose of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court such facts as existed at the time of trial that would have constituted a valid defense, but which, without negligence on the part of the defendant were not presented”

“In the same case, the court pointed out that a claim of insufficiency of the evidence cannot be passed upon in an appeal from the denial of a writ of error coram nobis.”

KAUFMAN, P. J.

On November 26, 1954, the district attorney of Alameda County, by information charged the appellant with two counts of robbery. On December 9, 1954, appellant was arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty to both counts. Appellant was then briefly transferred to San Francisco County for trial on a forgery charge and then retransferred to Alameda County. On January 10, 1955, at the request of the appellant and his counsel, the court granted a continuance until February 2, 1955. The trial began on March 19, 1955. On March 21, 1955, the jury found the appellant guilty on both counts and fixed the degree of the offense as robbery in the first degree. Judgment was rendered on March 23, 1955, and appellant was sentenced to the state prison for the term prescribed by law. No appeal from this judgment was taken. On January 3, 1958, appellant filed his petition for a writ of error

coram nobis.

The petition alleged (1) that appellant was denied his constitutional rights because he was transferred between judicial districts and the resulting delay of his trial for robbery; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of robbery in the first degree. Appellant’s petition was denied on February 6, 1958.

Appellant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court was guilty of an abuse of discretion in denying his petition for a writ of error

coram nobis.

We can find no abuse of discretion. . The purpose of the writ of error

coram nobis

is to bring to the attention of the court such facts as existed at the time of trial that would have constituted a valid defense, but which, without negligence on the part of the defendant were not presented either through duress, fear, or excusable mistake, and which do not appear in the record.

(People

Cole,

152 Cal.App.2d 71 [312 P.2d 701].) The appellant has not established by a preponderance of credible evidence that he was deprived of substantial legal rights by extrinsic causes. Rather, having failed to appeal from the judgment of conviction, the appellant is attempting to use

[185]

People v. Jackson

AI Brief

KAUFMAN, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief