People v. Forest
Decision Date | 25 October 2017 |
Docket Number | A148330 |
Citation | 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 827,16 Cal.App.5th 1099 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Joseph FOREST, Defendant and Appellant. |
Riordan & Horgan, Dennis P. Riordan, Donald M. Horgan, and Matthew Dirkes, San Francisco, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Jeffrey M. Laurence, Assistant Attorneys General, Gregg E. Zywicke and Bruce M. Slavin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
On November 8, 2006, Robert Forest pointed a handgun at Stanley Douglass. Forest was arrested the next day and charged with felony assault with a deadly weapon. ( Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2).)1 Following a preliminary hearing, he was held to answer, and his motion to set aside the information was denied, but the case never went to trial. On January 18, 2008, the trial court granted the prosecution's motion to dismiss the information for insufficient evidence. On October 7, 2008, Forest unsuccessfully applied to the superior court for a finding of factual innocence.
(§ 851.8, subd. (c).) Defendant unsuccessfully appealed from that decision. In 2016, defendant unsuccessfully sought to vacate the superior court's prior judgment denying his 2008 application by petitioning for a writ of coram nobis . He appeals the denial of that petition. We deny the petition on the merits.
On August 3, 2010, Division Four of this court affirmed the trial court's ruling in an unpublished opinion, as noted in footnote 2, ante . On October 20, 2010, the California Supreme Court denied review. (People v. Forest , S186284.) On March 7, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari ( Forest v. California (2011) 562 U.S. 1272, 131 S.Ct. 1615, 179 L.Ed.2d 502.) On January 13, 2016, after filing two civil lawsuits arising out of the same 2006 arrest,3 Forest filed a "Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and For a Finding of Factual Innocence" in the Mendocino County Superior Court, seeking to vacate that court's prior judgment finding against him in the original factual innocence matter.
Defendant filed his petition for writ of error coram nobis in the Mendocino County Superior Court. There is no judgment of conviction to collaterally attack: the charged violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(2) was dismissed before trial. The judgment defendant attacks is the Mendocino County Superior Court's order denying his petition for a finding of factual innocence. (§ 851.8.)4 That order was appealed to the First District Court of Appeal and affirmed by Division Four of this court. ( Forest I , supra , A124144.) Review was denied by the California Supreme Court. (People v. Forest , review den. Oct. 20, 2010, S186284.) The remittitur issued October 27, 2010.
Section 1265 states in relevant part: (Italics added.)
While it is often stated that the writ is not available where the defendant has a remedy by appeal or other adequate remedy ( People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1093–1094, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, 202 P.3d 436 ) ( Kim ), in fact, by its very terms section 1265 contemplates that a writ of error coram vobis will lie to vacate a judgment that has been affirmed on appeal. "[A] petition for a writ of error coram nobis is regarded, in practical effect, as a motion to vacate a judgment [citation], and is neither a new adversary suit nor an independent action, but simply a part of the proceedings in the case to which it relates." ( People v. Sica (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 59, 61–62, 253 P.2d 75 ( Sica ).) Pursuant to section 1265, the appellate court retains jurisdiction to entertain a petition to vacate the judgment it affirmed. Thus, by operation of the statute, once a judgment has been appealed, the appellate court has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate a coram nobis petition.
It follows the Mendocino County Superior Court had no jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate the merits of defendant's coram nobis petition. ( Sica, supra , 116 Cal.App.2d at pp. 60–63, 253 P.2d 75 ; People v. Mort (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 596, 599–600, 29 Cal.Rptr. 650 ; People v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 680–682, 51 Cal.Rptr. 244, 414 P.2d 372 ( Allenthorp ); People v. Malveaux (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1429–1430, 1434–1436, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 371.)
The upshot is that while a postjudgment order denying a motion to vacate the judgment or writ of error coram nobis in the superior court is generally appealable ( Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal.5th 124, 134, 218 Cal.Rptr.3d 654, 395 P.3d 689 ; Allenthorp, supra , 64 Cal.2d at p. 682, 51 Cal.Rptr. 244, 414 P.2d 372 ), by virtue of section 1265, defendant's appeal from the superior court's order below is a non-starter. We may dismiss the appeal. ( Sica, supra , 116 Cal.App.2d at p. 64, 253 P.2d 75.) We may also treat the appeal as an original proceeding in this court for a writ of error coram vobis . ( People v. Brady (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 81, 83, 105 Cal.Rptr. 280 ( Brady ); People v. Kennedy (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 273, 275–277, 253...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoffman v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.
... 16 Cal.App.5th 1086 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 818 Sim Carlisle HOFFMAN, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Orange County, Respondent; The People, Real Party in Interest. G054414 Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3, California. Filed November 7, 2017 Moss Law Group, Richard A. Moss, ......
-
People v. Vaughn
...v. Bemore (2000) 22 Cal.4th 809, 829 [defendant cursed victim during crime; conviction for capital murder affirmed]; People v. Forest (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1104 [conviction for assault with a deadly weapon; defendant told victim not to " 'mess' " or " 'f[**k]' " with him before he att......
-
People v. Mountford
...have the option to treat Mountford's appeal as an original proceeding in this court for a writ of error coram vobis. (People v. Forest (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1108.) The basis for the issuance of a writ of error coram vobis is substantially the same as for a writ of error coram nobis, t......
-
People v. Schneiders
...that there was no reasonable cause to arrest him in the first place.'" (Adair, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 905; see People v. Forest (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1110 ["'To meet this burden, the petitioner must show more than a viable defense to the crime.'"]; People v. Bleich (2009) 178 Cal.App......