People v. Sutton

• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: People v. Sutton, 115 Cal.App.2d 751, 252 P.2d 633 (Cal. App. 1953)
• Decision Date: 03 February 1953
• Docket Number: Cr. 4892
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SUTTON.

Page 633

252 P.2d 633

115 Cal.App.2d 751

PEOPLE v. SUTTON.

Cr. 4892.

District Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

Feb. 3, 1953.

Richard E. Erwin, Los Angeles, for appellant.

Edmund G. Brown, Atty. Gen., and William E. James, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Eugene Sutton appeals from an order of the superior court denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Upon appellant's request for appointment of counsel Richard E. Erwin, Esq., member of the Los Angeles Bar Association on Criminal Appeals, was appointed by this court to represent him. As to the conditions of his appointment see People v. Dodd, 113 Cal.App.2d 682, 248 P.2d 965. Mr. Erwin has reported that in an examination of the record he has found no meritorious ground for the appeal. We have made an independent study of the record. There is no merit in the appeal.

In his petition Sutton represents that on September 16, 1946, in Ventura County he was convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to State prison. The victim of the murder was a cab driver who was shot in his cab in which petitioner and one Jake Thompson were riding. It is alleged that Thompson had the gun and fired the fatal shot; that he left the gun in the cab from which it was removed by petitioner. Thompson confessed the murder but upon the trial implicated petitioner therein and both were convicted. In the early part of 1952, in State prison, Thompson informed petitioner that his testimony at the trial was false and that he accused petitioner of the murder in order to save himself from capital punishment.

The first point advanced by petitioner is that Thompson, and not he, committed the crime. In the argument of this point it appears that the only fact not known to petitioner at the time of trial is that Thompson now admits that it was he and not petitioner who fired the shot. The second contention is that before the trial petitioner informed his attorney that blood which was found on his clothing resulted from a fight he had had with one Denver Kingleloe and requested that witnesses to the fight be subpoenaed for the trial but that his attorney failed to have them subpoenaed. It is claimed that the attorney did not call witnesses to a conversation between Thompson and petitioner's ex-wife just prior to the murder, but it does not appear in what respect proof of the incident would have aided petitioner. Although it is contended that petitioner was convicted on the false...