People v. Maringer, Cr. 934

• Decision Date: 15 January 1953
• Docket Number: Cr. 934
• Citation: 251 P.2d 999,115 Cal.App.2d 390
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: PEOPLE v. MARINGER.

Page 999

251 P.2d 999

115 Cal.App.2d 390

PEOPLE v. MARINGER.

Cr. 934.

District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, California.

Jan. 15, 1953.

Fred Charles Maringer, in pro per.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen. and Michael J. Clemens, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.

BARNARD, Presiding Justice.

The defendant was convicted of murder and, on April 9, 1949, was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was represented at the trial by the public defender, and no appeal was taken. On February 8, 1950, he filed an application for a writ of error coram nobis. After a hearing, at which he was represented by the public defender, his petition was denied. On appeal, that order was affirmed. People v. Maringer, 101 Cal.App.2d 586, 225 P.2d 656. The general factual background is set forth in that decision.

On July 28, 1952, the defendant filed consolidated motions to vacate the judgment and to grant him a new trial, and also filed a 'motion for removal from prison order.' The motions to vacate the judgment and for a new trial were based on the grounds that he had discovered new evidence showing that a doctor, who had testified for the prosecution, had knowingly testified falsely; that he is informed and believes that the district attorney knew that this testimony was false; that a portion of this testimony was based on hearsay; and that the public defender did not properly protect his rights.

The court denied the motion for removal from prison, and the district attorney filed an affidavit in opposition to the motions to set aside the judgment and to grant a new trial. The defendant then filed a motion to strike this affidavit from the record. After a hearing, the defendant being represented by a new public defender, the court denied the motions to set aside the judgment, for a new trial, and to strike the affidavit.

The defendant has appealed from these orders, contending that the court erred in denying his motion for removal from prison so that he could present his new evidence; that the 'falsified' affidavit filed by the district attorney prejudiced 'the trial judge's mental attitude'; that the court erred in denying the motion to strike this affidavit; that the public defender did not properly present the motions to set aside the judgment and to grant a new trial; that the court erred in denying the motions to set aside the judgment and grant a new trial; and that the court's action in denying these motions without giving the defendant a full and complete opportunity to produce his witnesses and new evidence deprived him of due process of law under the state and federal constitutions.

Most of these contentions are based upon matters which could have been raised on appeal, and which were passed upon in the coram nobis proceeding. They may not be raised on a motion to vacate the judgment. People v. Ward, 96 Cal.App.2d 629, 216 P.2d 114. The defendant argues that on the prior appeal this court indicated that he was entitled to move the trial court to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial. It is insisted that the present proceeding is not one in coram nobis, but is a motion to vacate the judgment and grant a new trial brought...