People v. Croft
| Decision Date | 03 August 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 3112 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Charles William CROFT, Defendant and Appellant. |
Louis S. Katz, San Francisco, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen. of California, Clarence A. Linn. Asst. Atty. Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order denying defendant's petition for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis. The petition was made and the appeal briefed in propria persona. At appellant's request we appointed counsel to represent him at the oral argument. Counsel diligently urged that the facts of the case entitled appellant to relief under the rule of People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422, 443, 154 P.2d 657. However, said argument cannot avail appellant in these proceedings as the facts on which it was based were not sufficiently alleged or proved in the first instance.
Appellant's petition, verified but not accompanied by any affidavit, and the clerk's transcript of his original prosecution show in substance the following:
In an information in two counts appellant and George D. Croft, Jr. were accused of (1) burglary, (2) assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit murder, both committed in Contra Costa County on December 18, 1953 and connected in their commission. Appellant was arrested on that same date. On arraignment on February 18, 1954 both pleaded not guilty. At the trial on April 13, 1954 appellant withdrew his plea of not guilty of the burglary (count 1) and pleaded guilty to that offense. Upon motion of the district attorney count 2 of the information was amended to read 'Assault with a deadly weapon, an included offense. Appellant then pleaded guilty to this count as amended after having withdrawn his plea of not guilty to the offense as originally charged. The matter was referred to the probation officer for investigation and in the meantime appellant remanded to custody. Upon motion of the district attorney the information as to George D. Croft, Jr. was dismissed. On April 26, 1954 the court denied probation, found the burglary to be of the first degree and on each count sentenced appellant to San Quentin, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant was remanded to custody and the next day delivered to San Quentin.
In his petition he contends that his conviction and imprisonment violated the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th amendments of the United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 13 of the California Constitution and Section 1382 of the California Penal Code in that he was deprived of his right to a jury trial within 60 days of all trial on the merits and possibility of defense, because he was induced to plead guilty by 'wrongful persuasions' and 'deceptions' of his attorney, 'selling him out to the prosecution,' and who 'worked hand in hand' with it instead of defending him, which allegations are said to constitute extrinsic fraud (citing among other cases People v. Butterfield, 37 Cal.App.2d 140, 99 P.2d 310) and because his attorney blundered through ignorance and mismanaged his defense. It is further stated that the Writ of Error Coram Nobis is his sole remedy because the lower courts had refused him the right to appeal: '* * * as the trial judge sentenced him, and rushed him back to the County jail * * * he immediately wrote out his written notice of appeal, addressed it in an envelope with the United States Postage thereon prepaid to the Superior Court and the trial Judge who had sentenced him, and they would not allow him to have his records on appeal * * *' People v. Slobodion, 30 Cal.2d 362, 181 P.2d 868 is cited in this respect.
Hearing of this motion was ordered for January 31, 1955 and the district attorney was given notice of said hearing by the County Clerk but no notice to appellant appears. At the time set for the hearing the motion was denied without any further proceedings.
The denial without a hearing on the merits was justified because the petition did not state facts sufficient to form the basis for the issuance of the writ. The allegations of fraud, which do not state what acts or representations constituted the attorney's contended wrongful persuasion, deception, or collusion with the prosecution, are not sufficiently specific. In civil actions for fraud ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dewson, Cr. 3329
...517. Matters outside the record cannot be considered on appeal. People v. Villarico, 140 Cal.App.2d 233, 295 P.2d 76; People v. Croft, 134 Cal.App.2d 800, 286 P.2d 479; People v. Levine, 114 Cal.App.2d 616, 250 P.2d (2) That he was deprived of due process of law and effective aid of counsel......
-
Gutierrez v. Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco
...are precluded from considering matters Dehors the record. (Dryer v. Dryer, 231 Cal.App.2d 441, 451, 41 Cal.Rptr. 839; People v. Croft, 134 Cal.App.2d 800, 804, 286 P.2d 479; Ehman v. Moore, 221 Cal.App.2d 460, 463, 34 Cal.Rptr. 540.) But even if we could, it is apparent that this affidavit ......
-
People v. Janssen
...appeal. (People v. Sakelaris, 151 Cal.App.2d 758, 312 P.2d 263; In re Steiner, 134 Cal.App.2d 391, 399, 285 P.2d 972; People v. Croft, 134 Cal.App.2d 800, 286 P.2d 479.) Respondent brings to the attention of the court the fact of the admission into evidence of Janssen's extrajudicial statem......
-
Shaffer v. Superior Court
...questioned." (Id. at p. 69, 65 Cal.Rptr. 353, emphasis added.) In turn, Sequoia Pine Mills refers to language from People v. Croft (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 800, 286 P.2d 479: "No facts outside the record ... can be considered on appeal. [Citations.]" (Id. at p. 804, 286 P.2d 479, emphasis adde......