People v. Harding, Cr. 773
Citation | 252 P.2d 1007,116 Cal.App.2d 65 |
Decision Date | 13 February 1953 |
Docket Number | Cr. 773 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. HARDING. |
Court | California Court of Appeals |
William N. Byrd, Brawley, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen. and Frank Richards Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of error coram nobis.
In July, 1947, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of murder in the second degree, being represented by the public defender. At the time judgment was pronounced it was brought out that during 1943 he had spent three months in a mental institution in Texas, and that during the intervening years he had served a term in Folsom prison. The court included in the judgment a statement which reads: 'Should the adult authority deem fit, it is the recommendation of the court that the defendant be placed under the care and supervision of the prison doctors and psychiatrists.'
In June, 1951, the defendant sought by this writ to have the judgment set aside on the ground that the court was without jurisdiction to enter it, contending that he had been denied the aid of counsel at his preliminary examination; that the court had failed to take evidence as to the degree of the offense; that the court had doubt as to his sanity at the time he pleaded guilty; and that the public defender had unduly and improperly influenced him to enter a plea of guilty. The court appointed another attorney to represent the defendant on his application for this writ, the matter was submitted on affidavits and arguments of counsel, and the application was denied. His attorney on this appeal has acted at the request of this court.
There is no merit in the contention that the judgment is void because the defendant was not informed of his right to counsel at the preliminary hearing. It appears that the justice's docket stated that at that time the defendant was informed of his legal rights. If any deficiency existed, the matter could have been raised by moving to set aside the information or by other appropriate and timely action. People v. Knight, 106 Cal.App.2d 312, 234 P.2d 992; People v. Gilliam, 39 Cal.2d 235, 246 P.2d 31. Moreover, an application for this writ must be seasonably made, People v Smith, 108 Cal.App.2d 696, 239 P.2d 466, and no explanation is offered for the delay of four years which here occurred.
The defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the second degree. If it be assumed that the court should also have taken evidence on the degree of the offense, its failure to do so was a mere irregularity which would not invalidate the judgment. In re Stroff, 132 Cal.App. 351, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Harris
...31 Cal.2d 693, 694--695, 192 P.2d 3; People v. Diaz (1962) supra, 206 Cal.App.2d 651, 659, 24 Cal.Rptr. 367; People v. Harding (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 65, 66, 252 P.2d 1007; People v. Greene (1951) 108 Cal.App.2d 136, 141--142, 238 P.2d 616.) The Legislature has provided defendants in crimina......
- In re Harrison
-
People v. Diaz
...... Likewise they made no contention concerning the matter on the prior appeal. . In People v. Harding (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 65, 66, 252 P.2d 1007, 1008, the court said concerning the defendant's claim in an application for a writ of error coram nobis ......
-
Wells, In re
...§ 996.) Petitioner's plea of guilty, entered with the advice of counsel, also precludes raising this contention. (People v. Harding (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 65, 66, 252 P.2d 1007; In re Basham (1938) 24 Cal.App.2d 285, 286, 74 P.2d 781; see also People v. Laudermilk (1967) 67 A.C. 269, 278, 61......