People v. Keogh

LILLIE, J. On February 5, 1962, a court found defendant guilty of possession of marijuana (§ 11530, Health & Saf. Code) as charged in information No. 249809; he was represented by retained counsel C. F. Legeman. Proceedings were suspended and probation was granted for a period of three years. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

On December 10, 1963, defendant was charged by information No. 281894 with possession of heroin (§ 11500, Health & Saf. Code), and on December 11, 1963, appearing with retained counsel J. VanderLans, entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter in January 1964, while on bail, defendant was arrested a third time on narcotic charges; later, on Februay 10, 1964, he withdrew his not guilty plea (in the second case, No. 281894) and entered a plea of guilty.

On February 17, 1964, defendant was charged in a third information, No. 284666, in count I, with possession for sale of heroin (§ 11500.5, Health & Saf. Code) and in count II with possession of heroin (§ 11500, Health & Saf. Code) and entered a plea of not guilty to each count on February 25, 1964. On March 2, 1964, defendant appeared with deputy public defender H. Mead1 on all three cases—in the first, No. 249809, probation was revoked, in the second, No. 281894, the cause was called for judgment and sentence on defendant’s plea of guilty and in the third, No. 284666, defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty on count II and entered a plea of guilty to possession of heroin as charged therein and waived probation report. Pending criminal pro[472]eeedings in all three cases (Nos. 249809, 281894, 284666) were adjourned and the sheriff was ordered to file a petition in Department 95, superior court, under section 6451, Penal Code. On March 18, 1964, defendant was adjudged a narcotics addict and committed to the narcotic rehabilitation program; he has since been at the California Rehabilitation Center.

Over three years later defendant in propria persona filed in the superior court in each of the aforementioned cases petition for writ of error coram nobis. His complaint that he was not “correctly” represented by counsel in the first case, No. 249809, in which he took no appeal, is not clear but he claims that in the last two cases, Nos. 281894 and 284666, he pleaded guilty on the advice of his counsel and his guilty pleas were procured by fraud, duress and mental and psychological coercion forced upon him by the arresting officers and defense counsel. As to his guilty plea in the third case (No. 284666), he asserts that “ [he] was forced to plead guilty by the threat that if [he] didn’t [he] would face a state prison sentence for (3) narcotic felonies. Also that [his] wife and children would be incarcerated and turned against [him] ”; his counsel told him he could “fix” it so he could plead to possession (of heroin) and the possession for sale “would be dropped,” if he fought the ease and lost he would go to the state prison for 10 to 15 years minimum but if he pleaded guilty he would see to it that he was committed to the California Rehabilitation Center for eight months to one year and “we’re in a hurry you can’t speak to [your wife] now, plead guilty and go to the hospital (C.R.C.), that’s what your wife wants, and we’re in a hurry”; his counsel gave him no adequate explanation of court procedures and told him that pleading guilty was merely for court purposes and to speed the proceedings; the proceedings should have been dismissed on grounds of “illegal search and seizure” and while he paid his counsel to represent him counsel spent no time with him and failed to explain his position to the court; and he was not ‘ ‘ correctly ’ ’ represented for he had a meritorious defense and had his counsel been diligent in the preparation of the case and not advised him to plead guilty he “would, no doubt, have been found not guilty. ’ ’