People v. Jackson, Cr. 3516

• Decision Date: 17 November 1958
• Docket Number: Cr. 3516
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Matthew JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 981

331 P.2d 981

165 Cal.App.2d 183

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Matthew JACKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 3516.

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

Nov. 17, 1958.

Albert E. Gately, San Francisco, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty.Gen., Clarence A. Linn, Chief Asst.Atty.Gen., Raymond M. Momboisse, Deputy Atty.Gen., for respondent.

KAUFMAN, Presiding Justice.

On November 26, 1954, the District Attorney of Alameda County, by information charged the appellant with two counts of robbery. On December 9, 1954, appellant was arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty to both counts. Appellant was then briefly transferred to San Francisco County for trial on a forgery charge and then retransferred to Alameda County. On January 10, 1955 at the request of the appellant and his counsel, the court granted a continuance until February 2, 1955. The trial began on March 19, 1955. On March 21, 1955, the jury found the appellant guilty on both counts and fixed the degree of the offense as robbery in the first degree. Judgment was rendered on March 23, 1955 and appellant was sentenced to the State prison for the term prescribed by law. No appeal from this judgment was taken. On January 3, 1958, appellant filed his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. The petition alleged (1) that appellant was denied his constitutional rights because he was transferred between judicial districts and the resulting delay of his trial for robbery; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict of robbery in the first degree. Appellant's petition was denied on February 6, 1958.

Appellant's sole contention on appeal is that the trial court was guilty of an abuse of discretion in denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. We can find no abuse of discretion. The purpose of the writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the attention of the court such facts as existed at the time of trial that would have constituted a valid defense, but which, without negligence on the part of the defendant were not present, either through duress, fear, or excusable mistake, and which do not appear in the record. People v. Cole, 152 Cal.App.2d 71, 312 P.2d 701. The appellant has not established by a preponderance of credible evidence that he was deprived of substantial legal rights by extrinsic causes. Rather, having failed to appeal from the judgment of conviction, the appellant is attempting to use the writ to review matters which could have been raised on appeal. People v. Millwood, 150 Cal.App.2d 154, 309 P.2d 495.

The record clearly indicates that appellant waived Penal Code, section 1382. People v. Workman, 121 Cal.App.2d 533, 263 P.2d 458. As stated in People v. Martinelli, 118 Cal.App.2d 94, at page 97, 257...