People v. Black

WOOD (W. J.), J.,

pro

tem.

A complaint was issued by the justice of the peace of Riverside township, in which the appellant was accused of the possession of intoxicating liquor. To this charge he entered a plea of guilty on July 5, 1927, and was sentenced to pay a fine of five hundred dollars or be imprisoned six months. The fine not being paid he was remanded to the custody of the sheriff. A petition for a writ of error

coram nobis

was filed by appellant in the superior court of Riverside County on July 25, 1927, in which he sought to vacate the judgment of the justice court on the ground, as alleged, that he had entered

[226]

his plea through duress and fraud. He set forth in his petition that one William Rush, his employer, had induced him to enter the plea of guilty upon Rush’s assurance that only a light fine would be imposed, which Rush would pay. Upon his plea of guilty he made untrue statements to the court, in which he falsely exonerated Rush from responsibility in the matter of the possession of the liquor. The superior court made an order on October 8, 1927, denying the writ, and from this order petitioner appeals.

In his petition to the superior court appellant asks for a “writ of error

coram nobis.”

This term is not accurately used. The writ

coram nobis

is issued from a court to correct certain errors of fact made in the court that issues the writ. The writ

cora,m vobis

is issued to correct certain errors of fact made in an inferior tribunal. Therefore, the writ in the present case should have been termed

“coram vobis.’ ’

However, the two terms have been used interchangeably by good authority and we feel justified in regarding the matter as if the proper nomenclature had been used.