People v. Sorensen
| Decision Date | 28 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 2804 |
| Citation | 111 Cal.App.2d 404,244 P.2d 734 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SORENSEN. |
Edward M. Digardi, Oakland, for appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., Charles A. Linn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. McClung, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Appellant was convicted on October 2, 1945 of violations of section 288 Penal Code and of section 702 Welfare & Institutions Code and is now confined in the State penitentiary. On August 1, 1951 he filed in the Superior Court in pro. per. a petition for a writ of error coram nobis and this appeal is taken from the order of that court denying his petition.
The court appointed counsel to represent the appellant on this appeal and such counsel urges the following points: From his petition it appears that appellant was denied a jury trial and a public trial by reason of the fraud of his counsel, and of any trial on the merits because of his counsel's failure to investigate the facts and produce witnesses suggested to his counsel by appellant.
Since the decision in People v. Adamson, 34 Cal.2d 320, 210 P.2d 13 it appears to be settled that 'habeas corpus * * * has become the proper remedy to attack collaterally a judgment of conviction which has been obtained in violation of fundamental constitutional rights.' 34 Cal.2d page 327, 210 P.2d at page 16.
Appellant's petition is quite sketchy but it may be spelled out from it that the public defender through an assistant contrary to appellant's expressed wish waived a jury trial and consented to the exclusion of the public from the trial and failed to produce witnesses (neither the names of whon nor what they would have testified to being set out in the petition) suggested by appellant. If these facts if proved would entitle petitioner to any relief especially at this late date, People v. Adamson, supra, makes clear that that relief must be sought by habeas corpus and not by coram nobis.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morelli, In re
...12 L.Ed.2d 742; Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L.Ed.2d 629; Baldwin v. N.Y., 399 U.S. 66) People v. Sorenson, 111 Cal.App.2d 404, 244 P.2d 734, cited by Morelli, is not in 8. Nature of Order Finding in Contempt. Morelli has made no attack based on any possible inade......
-
Wilson v. Blabon
...See: Thomas v. Teets, 205 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1953); People v. Adamson, 34 Cal.2d 320, 210 P.2d 13 (1949); People v. Sorenson, 111 Cal.App.2d 404, 244 P. 2d 734 (1952); cf.: United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502, 74 S.Ct. 247, 98 L.Ed. 248 (1954); United States ex rel. Durocher v. LaVallee, ......
-
Gomez v. Barnes
...of conviction which has been obtained in violation of fundamental constitutional rights.") (citations omitted); People v. Sorenson, 111 Cal. App. 2d 404, 405 (1952) (claims that fundamental constitutional rights have been violated may be raised by state habeas petition). This Court expresse......
-
Salazar v. Barnes
...claiming sentencing error, even though the alleged sentencing error could have been raised on direct appeal); People v. Sorensen, 111 Cal. App. 2d 404, 405, 244 P.2d 734 (1952) (noting that claims that fundamental constitutional rights have been violated may be raised by state habeas petiti......