People v. Harding

California Court of Appeal Feb 13, 1953 No. Crim. 773Published

Before: Barnard

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a writ of error coram nobis, finding no merit in the defendant's claims regarding lack of counsel, failure to determine the degree of the offense, sanity, or improper influence by counsel.

Issues

Whether the judgment was void due to an alleged failure to inform the defendant of his right to counsel at the preliminary hearing.
Whether the court's failure to take evidence on the degree of the offense invalidated the judgment.
Whether the court was required to order a sanity trial under Penal Code section 1368.
Whether the defendant was improperly influenced by the public defender to plead guilty.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“If it be assumed that the court should also have taken evidence on the degree of the offense, its failure to do so was a mere irregularity which would not invalidate the judgment.”

BARNARD, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of error

coram nobis.

In July, 1947, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree, being represented by the public defender. At the time judgment was pronounced it was brought out that during 1943 he had spent three months in a mental institution in Texas, and that during the intervening years he had served a term in Folsom prison. The court included in the judgment a statement which reads: “Should the adult authority deem fit, it is the recommendation of the court that the defendant be placed under the care and supervision of the prison .doctors and psychiatrists. ’ ’

In June, 1951, the defendant sought by this writ to have the judgment set aside on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to enter it, contending that he had been denied the aid of counsel at his preliminary examination; that the court had failed to take evidence as to the degree of the offense; that the court had doubt as to his sanity at the time he pleaded guilty; and that the public defender had unduly and improperly influenced him to enter a plea of guilty. The court appointed another attorney to represent the defendant on his application for this writ, the matter was submitted on affidavits and arguments of counsel, and the application was denied. His attorney on this appeal has acted at the request of this court.

There is no merit in the contention that the judgment is void because the defendant was not informed of his right to counsel at the prelimiary hearing. It appears that the justice’s docket stated that at that time the defendant was informed of his legal rights. If any deficiency existed, the matter could have been raised by moving to set aside the information or by other appropriate and timely action.

(People

v. Knight, 106 Cal.App.2d 312 [234 P.2d 992];

People

Gilliam,

39 Cal.2d 235 [246 P.2d 31].) Moreover, an application for this writ must be seasonably made

(People

Smith,

[67]

People v. Harding

AI Brief

BARNARD, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief