People v. Perez (1908) · DecisionDepot

People v. Perez

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Oct 31, 1908 No. Crim. No. 76.Published

Before: Burnett

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that while a defendant may move to set aside a judgment based on a plea of guilty obtained through duress, the trial court's denial of such a motion is affirmed when the evidence supports the finding that the plea was voluntary.

Issues

Whether a motion to set aside a judgment based on a plea of guilty obtained by duress is a proper procedure.
Whether an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment after a plea of guilty is appealable.
Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant's plea of guilty was voluntary.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A confession of guilt obtained by duress is void and cannot be the basis for a valid judgment.”

“The order should be affirmed, however, for the all-sufficient reason that the trial court was justified in believing that defendant’s plea was entirely voluntary.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County denying a motion to set aside a sentence upon a plea of guilty for alleged duress. E. M. Rector, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

BURNETT, J.

Appellant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery, and on March 23, 1907, he was sentenced to the

[266]

penitentiary for life. On the second day of March, 1908, he filed a petition in the lower court alleging that his plea of guilty was made while under duress, “in that subsequent to his arrest, and prior to the preliminary examination, and while incarcerated in the county jail, the sheriff represented to him that he was in immediate danger of mob violence, and the only way to escape the same was to plead guilty and be immediately taken to the penitentiary. That believing and acting solely upon said representations he did then and there consent to plead guilty to said charge of robbery. ’ ’

On March 31, 1908, after notice given to the district attorney, counsel for petitioner moved the court to grant a writ of error

coram nobis

in accordance with the allegations and prayer of the petition. Affidavits in opposition to the motion were offered by the district attorney, which were received in evidence by the court over the objection and exception of petitioner, and from the order denying said motion the appeal has been taken.

It is claimed by respondent that no such proceeding is known to our practice as an application for the writ of ‘ ‘ error

coram nobis,”

but we need not discuss this technical phase of the question, as we consider the proceeding here equivalent to a motion that the court set aside the judgment and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea of guilty upon the ground that it was extorted from him by fear of violence. That such a motion is proper we entertain no doubt. A confession of guilt obtained by duress is void and cannot be the basis for a valid judgment. The statute does not expressly provide how the action of the trial court shall be invoked for the avoidance of such a judgment, but under the authorities it is clear that the proper procedure is by motion supported by documentary or oral evidence, or both.

Again, it is contended by the attorney general that no appeal lies from the order denying the motion, but in this we think respondent is in error, as this is an “order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the defendant.

People v. Perez

AI Brief

Synopsis

BURNETT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief