People v. Del'Marmol

California Court of Appeal Jul 24, 1952 No. Crim. No. 4808Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a writ of error coram nobis is unavailable when the underlying claim of evidentiary insufficiency could have been raised on appeal, and further held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the required diligence.

Issues

Whether a writ of error coram nobis lies for a claim of insufficiency of the evidence that could have been reviewed on appeal.
Whether the petitioner demonstrated the necessary diligence to obtain relief by motion for coram nobis.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since the claim of insufficiency of the evidence could have been presented and reviewed on appeal, coram nobis does not lie.”

“It is well settled that a showing of diligence is prerequisite to the availability of relief by motion for coram nobis.”

THE COURT. On October 31,1945, Edwin J. DePMarmol was convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of burglary; in December, 1951, he filed in said court a petition for writ of error coram nobis; the sole ground was claimed insufficiency of the evidence; the petition was denied and Del’Marmol appealed from the order.

The appeal is without merit. Since the claim of insufficiency of the evidence could have been presented and reviewed on appeal, coram nobis does not lie. (People v. Coyle, 88 Cal.App.2d 967, 970 [200 P.2d 546]; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249, 255 [232 P. 457, 36 A.L.R. 1435].) No excuse was offered for the long delay in filing the application. “ It is well settled that a showing of diligence is prerequisite to the availability of relief by motion for coram nobis.” (People v. Shorts, 32 Cal.2d 502, 512 [197 P.2d 330].)

The order is affirmed.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 21, 1952.

People v. Del'Marmol

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief