People v. Gatewood
Decision Date | 15 July 1960 |
Docket Number | Cr. 6865 |
Citation | 182 Cal.App.2d 724,6 Cal.Rptr. 447 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert Lee GATEWOOD, Defendant and Appellant. |
Robert Lee Gatewood, in pro. per.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Defendant, in propria persona, appeals from order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
On October 14, 1958, defendant was sentenced to the State Prison for the term prescribed by law, following a trial in which he was found guilty of burglary of the second degree. Four prior felony convictions were found to be true. No motion for a new trial was made, nor was an appeal taken from the judgment. Thereafter and on or about May 21, 1959, defendant filed a 'Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis and/or Motion to Null, Vacate and Set Aside Judgment.' No evidence was presented and the matter was disposed of on the petition, to which was attached defendant's 'Arguments and Authorities.' The petition was denied on May 28, 1959.
Defendant was charged with the burglary of a telephone booth of the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. After defendant had testified and rested his case, the court recalled prosecution witness, orvil D. Jones, for further testimony. Defendant asserts that the witness, a police agent for the telephone company, told the court and demonstrated how the burglary could have been perpetrated; i. e., 'that by snatching and pulling on the placard holder a person could tear the upper-housing cover off and then by use of a screw driver such as found in petitioner's possession could obtain easy access to the money.'
The petition alleges these points as grounds for the issuance of the writ: (1) That the testimony of witness Jones was fraudulent and misleading in that it was impossible and improbable that entrance could be obtained in the manner described; that the witness knowingly concealed from the court the true facts as to the construction of a pay telephone. (2) That during the taking of Jones' testimony he, defendant, 'tried to no avail, to get his appointed counsel to ask the necessary questions that would have shown the falsity of Mr. Jones' statements', and that the court and appointed counsel 'deprived' him of the right to take the witness stand in an attempt to rebut such testimony. (3) That defendant failed to take an appeal because the court 'implied' and counsel 'told him' that it would be necessary for him to hire an attorney to initiate an appeal.
In discussing the function of a writ of error coram nobis, this court stated, in People v. Hayman, 145 Cal.App.2d 620, 623, 302 P.2d 810, 812:
People v. Egan, 73 Cal.App.2d 894, 899, 167 P.2d 766, 769.
The averments in the petition are clearly insufficient to spell extrinsic fraud. See, People v. Mooney, 178 Cal. 525, 527-528, 174 P. 325; In re Manchester, 33 Cal.2d 740, 742, 204 P.2d 881; People v. Darcy, 79 Cal.App.2d 683, 689, 180 P.2d 752. The court states, in the Mooney case, 178 Cal. at page 530, 174 P. at page 327: People v. Carpenter, 162 Cal.App.2d 182, 183, 328 P.2d 482: There is no allegation, much less proof, that the prosecution knowingly used or procured the alleged 'fraudulent' testimony.
In his argument, defendant also claims that at the time witness Jones testified, he had full knowledge ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Williams
...(1955) 45 Cal.2d 433, 435 and 437, 290 P.2d 491; People v. Adamson, supra, 34 Cal.2d 320, 328, 210 P.2d 13; People v. Gatewood (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 724, 728, 6 Cal.Rptr. 447; People v. Sharp (1958) 157 Cal.App.2d 205, 208, 320 P.2d 589; People v. Remling, supra, 146 Cal.App.2d 476, 479, 30......
-
Houlihan v. Department of Motor Vehicles
...has been denied a fair trial on the merits through fraud, coercion or mistake. (P. 952, 83 Cal.Rptr. 76; citing People v. Gatewood, 182 Cal.App.2d 724, 6 Cal.Rptr. 447.) We conclude, therefore, that petitioner does not have the right to challenge the constitutionality of his first convictio......
-
People v. Stoliker
...obtained. It is doubtful whether coram nobis lies here (People v. Conley, 115 Cal.App.2d 749, 750, 252 P.2d 716; People v. Gatewood, 182 Cal.App.2d 724, 726-728, 6 Cal.Rptr. 447; People v. Ayala, 138 Cal.App.2d 243, 246, 291 P.2d 517); but we prefer to consider the matter upon the merits as......
-
People v. Hinkley
...GRIFFIN, P. J., and GERALD BROWN, J., concur. 1 (People v. O'Neal, 204 Cal.App.2d 707, 709, 22 Cal.Rptr. 641; People v. Gatewood, 182 Cal.App.2d 724, 726, 6 Cal.Rptr. 447; People v. Tannatt, 181 Cal.App.2d 262, 267, 5 Cal.Rptr. 256; People v. Fowler, 175 Cal.App.2d 808, 810, 346 P.2d 792; P......