People v. Payne

FOURT, J. This is an appeal by the defendant from an order of the superior court, denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis.

Defendant was charged in an information with nine counts of robbery and attempted robbery. The public defender was appointed to represent defendant; later, however, the defendant stated that he preferred to represent' himself and counsel [611]was dismissed. After a trial by jury, defendant was found guilty of eight counts of robbery and one count of attempted robbery, the jury disagreeing on one count of robbery which said count was later dismissed. The jury found that in each instance it was robbery in the first degree and that the defendant was armed at the time of the commission of the robberies.

A motion for a new trial was made and denied. Defendant was sentenced to the state prison. Judgment was entered July 6, 1954. A purported appeal was taken from the judgment which appeal was subsequently dismissed for good cause on December 15, 1954. Remittitur issued and was filed in the superior court on January 18, 1955.

On June 6, 1955, defendant filed what is denominated “Petition for a writ of error coram nobis: and the order to show cause why the writ should not be granted immediately.” The petition came on for hearing on June 8, 1955, and on that date was denied. On July 6, 1955, there was filed a notice of appeal which was dated June 30, 1955. It is at once apparent that the appeal is subject to dismissal on the ground that there was no compliance with the requirements of rule 31 of the Rules on Appeal.

However, we have seen fit to dispose of the matter on its merits, rather than on the ground of failure to comply with the Rules on Appeal.

Petitioner contends that the judgment is barred by “intellectual honesty,” that it is repugnant to the federal and state Constitutions. Further, “that he was entrapped by trickery, search and seizures contrary to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution”; that “he was convicted on false hearsay testimony coerced and conspired against him”; that there was an unlawful breaking into his home and that an attempt was made to force a confession out of him; that the prosecuting attorney made prejudicial remarks to the jury; that his attorney was incompetent and should have presented certain facts in open court; that the trial was dominated by passion and prejudice in an “atmosphere of hysteria” and that he was denied the right to appeal.