People v. Hoffman

• Decision Date: 09 April 1951
• Docket Number: Cr. 2670
• Citation: 229 P.2d 486,103 Cal.App.2d 315
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HOFFMAN et al.

Page 486

229 P.2d 486

103 Cal.App.2d 315

PEOPLE v. HOFFMAN et al.

Cr. 2670.

District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.

April 9, 1951.

Rehearing Denied April 24, 1951.

Hearing Denied May 7, 1951.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Dannenbrink & Graves and Harold J. Abraham, all of Oakland, for respondent Brandt.

James Martin MacInnis, San Francisco, for respondent Hoffman.

NOURSE, Presiding Justice.

The State appeals from an order for issuance of a writ of error coram nobis, the writ having been issued pursuant to an order to show cause on an affidavit and petition for leave to withdraw the pleas of guilty on the assertion that the defendants had been induced to enter such pleas by the false promises and misrepresentations on the part of the trial judge that if they did so he would grant them leniency in the sentence, either by an order of confinement in the county jail or by the granting of probation. The application was heard before another trial judge who concluded that the defendants had been unfairly dealt with and granted the writ.

Three defendants were indicted and charged with the crimes of conspiracy and abortion. All three entered pleas of not guilty and went to trial before a jury. During the course of the trial at the request of their counsel they entered the judge's chambers, accompanied by the deputy district attorney in charge of the trial, particularly to urge leniency for the defendant Zoffel who was an elderly woman suffering from a paralytic stroke and who had had a prior conviction of a felony which debarred her from seeking probation. As a result of the conference the deputy district attorney agree to amend the indictment as to defendant Zoffel to accept a plea of a lesser offense and to dismiss the other charges against her. This was agreed to and the trial judge cautioned counsel for the other defendants that it had no relation to them.

As to the defendants Hoffman and Brandt the experienced and conscientious trial judge testified in this hearing that he cautioned counsel for these defendants as follows: "I don't want you men to feel that because we have been discussing this at all, that you men will get probation or that there will be any disposition.' I said, 'I don't know anything about these men,' and I said, 'I would have to consider it; I would have to see the reports when they come in. When it is all through, I might send them to San Quentin.' I said, 'I don't know what I will do with them,' but I said, 'I don't want you to leave here feeling that they are going to get probation." This statement was corroborated by the deputy district attorney and the counsel for both defendants, Brandt and Hoffman, and is not disputed in any material part. In truth and fact the whole case of defendants is that after their counsel had left the judge's chambers they informed defendants in the Hall of Justice vernacular that they had made a 'deal' with the judge to get probation if they would enter their pleas of guilty, and that such pleas were made because of such representations. Judgments on these pleas were duly entered sentencing both defendants to the State penitentiary for the time prescribed by law. Thereupon they moved for permission to withdraw their pleas of guilty and to proceed to trial on a plea of not guilty. These motions were denied. No appeal was taken from the judgments nor from the order denying these motions. No motion for a new trial or abatement of the judgments was made. The only relief from their predicament sought by the defendants was this application for a writ of error coram nobis.

The writ was...