People v. Chapman
| Citation | 96 Cal.App.2d 668,216 P.2d 112 |
| Decision Date | 27 March 1950 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2192 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. CHAPMAN. |
Jack Chapman, in pro per.
Fred N. Howser, Attorney General, by Gail A. Strader, Deputy, for respondent.
Appellant Chapman was convicted by a jury in the Superior Court of Tuolumne County on two counts, robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, and assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily harm. He appealed from the judgment and same was affirmed by this court. People v. Chapman, 91 Cal.App.2d 854, 206 P.2d 4. A hearing was denied by the Supreme Court.
In September, 1949, Chapman filed in the Superior Court of Tuolumne County what he designated as a motion to annul, vacate and set aside the aforesaid judgment 'and/or petition for writ of coram nobis or writ of error,' alleging, as grounds therefor: (1) that his prosecution on the two counts had placed him in double jeopardy; (2) that the testimony of Donald Larios, his co-defendant, charges against whom had been dismissed during the trial so he could testify against Chapman, was inadmissible for the reason that he had been promised immunity in return for said testimony; (3) that the trial court committed error in allowing the jury to separate during the trial; (4) that it was prejudicial misconduct to assign as bailiffs in charge of the jury two officers who had taken part in the investigation of the crime; (5) that defendant was denied the right to trial by an impartial jury when he was prosecuted by a district attorney who practices civil law in addition to his duties as district attorney; (6) that the trial was not conducted according to law or due process in that defendant was not personally present during the entire trial proceedings; (7) that the district attorney was guilty of prejudicial misconduct in commenting, during his argument to the jury, on the failure of defendant to testify in his own behalf; (8) that the district attorney was further guilty of prejudicial misconduct in charging the jury as to matters of fact; (9) that the verdict and judgment are void for uncertainty; and (10) that the verdict is contrary to the evidence. In a supplement to the motion, which he filed October 26, 1949, it was alleged that the court erred in giving a certain instruction; and in an additional supplement filed November 14, 1949, he set up: (1) that one member of the jury voted not guilty, though he admits that the jury was polled, and that the verdict should have been failure to agree; (12) that the court erred in refusing to inquire into whether or not the jury received evidence out of court; and (13) that the testimony of Audrey Larios (defendant's danger) was inadmissible under section 1322 of the Penal Code.
The trial court, on November 18, 1949, denied defendant's petition and an appeal was taken. After the filing of the record here respondent served and filed a notice of motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that it is irregular, frivolous, sham and without merit; and the matter is before us on that motion.
We think that the trial court properly denied the petition, and that the appeal should be dismissed upon the grounds stated in respondent's motion. The Supreme Court, in several recent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sumner
...same court (Edwards v. People, 99 Cal.App.2d 216, 221 P.2d 336; People v. Schuman, 98 Cal.App.2d 140, 219 P.2d 36; and People v. Chapman, 96 Cal.App.2d 668, 216 P.2d 112) in which similar appeals were dismissed on the same ground. It is to be noted that the rationale of these dismissals was......
-
People v. Smith
...320, 210 P.2d 13; People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422, 154 P.2d 657; People v. Hoffman, 103 Cal.App.2d 315, 229 P.2d 486; People v. Chapman, 96 Cal.App.2d 668, 216 P.2d 112. The applicant must plead and prove that the facts upon which he relies were not known to him and could not, in the exerc......
-
Ex parte Chapman
...error coram nobis and petitioner's appeal from the order of denial was dismissed by the District Court of Appeal. (People v. Chapman (1950), 96 Cal.App.2d 668, 216 P.2d 112.) In the pending proceeding the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was originally presented to the District Court of......
-
People v. Smith
... ... Bailey, supra, 105 Cal.App.2d 150, 153, 232 P.2d 518. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court is bound 'to accept at face value the allegations of the petition' for the writ. People v. Adamson, supra, 34 Cal.2d 320, 330, 210 P.2d 13; People v ... Chapman, 96 Cal.App.2d 668, 671, 216 P.2d 112, 114 ... No substantial issue was raised by appellant's motion ... ...