People v. Ray
| Decision Date | 05 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 6307 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John R. RAY, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
John R. Ray, in pro. per.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., Jack E. Goertzen, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order denying the defendant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis and an appeal from an order denying a rehearing.
In an information filed in Los Angeles County on April 1, 1941, the defendant was charged in Count One through Three, Five, Seven and Eight with the crime of robbery while armed with a concealed deadly weapon, namely a revolver. In Counts Four and Six the defendant was charged with the crime of kidnapping for the purpose of robbery while armed with a concealed deadly weapon, namely a revolver. In Count Nine the defendant was charged with the crime of assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to commit murder while armed with a concealed deadly weapon, namely a revolver.
It was also charged in the information that the defendant had previously been convicted of two felonies and that he had served a term in prison for each of such offenses, the first of such prior convictions being for robbery in Utah about October 26, 1926 and the second for robbery in California about February 27, 1931.
The defendant was represented by the public defender and entered a plea of not guilty and denied the prior convictions on or about April 9, 1941. On May 23, 1941, in open court and while represented by the public defender, the defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty as to Counts One, Two and Nine, entered a plea of guilty thereto and admitted to being armed at the time of the commission of each of the offenses as set forth in each of the said counts. The defendant also admitted the prior convictions and to the serving of a prison term for each of such prior convictions.
The court found the robbery to be in the first degree in each of Counts One and Two. The defendant waived time for passing sentence. The judge sentenced the defendant to the state prison on each count. The sentence as to Count Two was ordered to run consecutively with the sentence in Count One and the sentence as to Count Nine was ordered to run consecutively with the sentence in Count One and with the sentence in Count Two. The judge also found the defendant to be and adjudged him an habitual criminal. The remaining counts of the information, namely Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Eight, were dismissed.
On February 11, 1958, the defendant filed in the Superior Court in Los Angeles County a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. On March 19, 1958, the petition was denied upon the grounds of an unreasonable delay in the filing thereof. On April 13, 1958, the defendant filed a petition for a rehearing. No new grounds were set forth or alleged in the petition for a rehearing. The petition for such rehearing was denied on April 14, 1958. A notice of appeal dated April 18, 1958, was filed by the defendant on April 21, 1958.
It is apparent that the notice of appeal from the order denying petition for a writ was not filed on time. We will consider the appeal as being from the order denying a rehearing.
On December 8, 1958, appellant filed his opening brief and on June 2, 1959, he filed a 'motion for a default judgment' which for lack of a better name we have designated as a supplemental brief. Nothing helpful has been set forth in appellant's brief and in effect such are nothing but a scathing denunciation of practically all law enforcement agencies, courts, the adult authority, prisons, and government generally. It can be ascertained, however, from what is called a 'table of contents' that appellant's contentions are as follows:
1. It was error for the lower court to deny the application for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis on the grounds of unreasonable delay; 2. It was error for the lower court not to produce the prisoner at the hearing on the application for said writ, and thus it was error for the lower court to hold a hearing in the absence of the appellant; 3. The sentence handed down by the original trial court for the offenses of which appellant pleaded guilty, was an unlawful sentence; 4. It was illegal and unconstitutional for the trial court to adjudge appellant an 'habitual criminal'; 5. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to try appellant or impose any sentence whatsoever; 6. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudge appellant an 'habitual criminal'; 7. Penal Code, Section 644 (Punishment of Habitual Criminal) is unconstitutional in that it permits entry of a judgment without a trial, notice, or accusation, and constitutes a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ray
...is unfortunately a long one. Convicted of the felony of robbery in Utah in 1926 appellant served a prison term. People v. Ray, 1959, 174 Cal.App.2d 233, 344 P.2d 347. Again convicted of that offense in California in 1931 appellant served an additional term. (Id.) In May, 1941, appellant ple......
-
People v. Fitzgerald
...the delay of 36 years in moving to have the judgment vacated. (People v. Crawford, 176 Cal.App.2d 564, 1 Cal.Rptr. 811; People v. Ray, 174 Cal.App.2d 233, 344 P.2d 347.) The appeal is manifestly frivolous and upon that ground is ...