In Re Nunez, 397 P.2d 998 (Cal. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Nunez, 397 P.2d 998 (Cal. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
86 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1965 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1965 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Martinez CA2/7
Cal. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
(Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1104 [“[t]hat a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which relates more to a mistake of law than of fact, is an inappropriate ground for relief . . . has long been the rule”]; In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [same].) Because the claims asserted by Martinez are not properly raised by a petition for writ of error coram nobis or a nonstatutory motion to vacate, the appeal must be dismissed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hyung Joon Kim (2×)
Cal. · 2009 · confidence medium
(Hirabayashi v. United States (W.D.Wn. 1986) 627 F.Supp. 1445 , affd. in part & revd. in part (9th Cir. 1987) 828 F.2d 591 .) By contrast, the writ of error coram nobis was found unavailable in the following situations: where trial counsel “improperly induced” the defendant to plead guilty to render him eligible for diversion and the trial court eventually denied diversion (In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ]); where the defendant pleaded guilty to having a prior felony conviction when he was eligible to have the prior reduced to a misdemeanor (People v.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kraus
Cal. Ct. App. · 1975 · confidence medium
Since the pleading requirements are strict, “it will often be readily apparent from the petition and the court’s own records that a petition for coram nobis is without merit and should therefore be summarily denied.” (People v. Shipman, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 230; accord: In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ].) If the petitioner takes an appeal in a case where the trial court properly denied the petition summarily for lack of supporting statements of fact, the appellate court may summarily dismiss the appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Brown
Cal. · 1973 · confidence medium
(People v. Wadkins (1965) 63 Cal.2d 110, 113-114 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 173 , 403 P.2d 429 ]; In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ].) In such an instance, however, the defendant is seeking post-judgment relief of a collateral nature, whereas in the instant case the petitioner sought timely relief before judgment by a motion in the criminal proceedings.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Grand
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
(See In re Atchley, 48 Cal.2d 408, 418 [ 310 P.2d 15 ]; People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422, 443 [ 154 P.2d 657 ]; In re Hough, 24 Cal.2d 522, 533 [ 150 P.2d 448 ]; People v. Ynostroza, 105 Cal.App.2d 332, 333 [ 232 P.2d 913 ].)” (In re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ]; People v. Keogh, 265 Cal.App. 2d 470, 474 [ 71 Cal.Rptr. 367 ].) “Under these authorities we are of the opinion that the petitioner under *32 the facts here was bound by his [plea] of guilty entered in the case then pending against him and may not have his [plea] set aside or vacated by reason of any…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Meza
Cal. Ct. App. · 1971 · confidence medium
(See In re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234, 235-236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ].) Defendant’s theory is that only the experts at CRC are able to say whether a person is a fit subject for treatment under the narcotics rehabilitation program, citing a case in which it was stated that where the superintendent of CRC has, within the discretion vested in him and after the minimum period following receipt of a person, found such person is not a fit subject for treatment, the committing court is not competent to overrule that decision.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fratianno
Cal. Ct. App. · 1970 · confidence medium
(In re Nunez, supra, 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ]; People v. Caruso, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d 624, 637-638, 640 ; see In re Watkins, 64 Cal.2d 866, 872 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 917 , 415 P.2d 805 ]; People v. Fleming, 190 Cal.App.2d 149, 150 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 743 ].)” Where, as here, the order denying the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and the pronouncement of judgment are “practically one act,” the order is reviewable on the appeal from the judgment and is not separately *223 appealable as an “order made after judgment.” (People v. Delles, supra, 69 Cal.2d 906, 908-90…
examined Cited as authority (rule) People v. Keogh (3×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
(See In re Atchley, 48 Cal.2d 408, 418 [ 310 P.2d 15 ] ; People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422, 443 [ 154 P.2d 657 ]; In re Hough, 24 Cal.2d 522, 533 [ 150 P.2d 448 ]; People v. Ynostroza, 105 Cal.App.2d 332, 333 [ 232 P.2d 913 ].) ” (In re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ]) defendant asserted that the arresting officers threatened that if he did not plead guilty his wife and children would be incarcerated and turned against him, but the thrust of his argument for coram nobis relief is that his counsel failed to discuss the case with him and prepare a defense of “illeg…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hemphill
Cal. Ct. App. · 1968 · confidence medium
(In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ]; People v. Shipman, supra, 62 Cal.2d at p. 230.) Such an order is not appealable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Alesi
Cal. · 1967 · confidence medium
(See In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ].) Here, it appears that defendant’s first attorney believed he could best discharge his duty to his client, who was then on parole from a prior narcotics conviction, by securing, if possible, his admission to the California Rehabilitation Center.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
Cal. Ct. App. · 1967 · confidence medium
In the absence of an allegation of state involvement, petitioner’s allegation that counsel improperly induced him to enter a guilty plea does not state grounds for coram nobis relief.” (In re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ] ; In re Watkins, 64 Cal.2d 866, 872 [ 51 Cal.Rptr. 917 , 415 P.2d 805 ]; People v. Ynostroza, 105 Cal.App.2d 332, 333 [ 232 P.2d 913 ].) Finally, appellant Williams has resided all her lifetime in the State of California; in the absence of evidence to the contrary it must be assumed that despite partial illiteracy, she knows and understands o…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hales
Cal. Ct. App. · 1966 · confidence medium
In In re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [2] [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ], it is stated: ‘In the absence of an allegation of state involvement, petitioner's allegation that counsel improperly induced him to enter a guilty plea does not state a ground for coram nobis relief. ’ Petitioner merely alleges that he was ill-advised by the public defender.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hales
Cal. Ct. App. · 1966 · confidence medium
In In re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [2] [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ], it is stated: 'In the absence of an allegation of state involvement, petitioner's allegation that counsel improperly induced him to enter a guilty plea does not state a ground for coram nobis relief.' Petitioner merely alleges that he was ill- advised by the public defender.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Watkins
Cal. · 1966 · confidence medium
In In re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [2] [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ], it is stated: “In the absence of an allegation of state involvement, petitioner’s allegation that counsel improperly induced him to enter a guilty plea does not state a ground for coram nobis relief. ’ ’ Petitioner merely alleges that he was ill-advised by the public defender.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Jolke
Cal. Ct. App. · 1966 · confidence medium
(In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ]; People v. Corona (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 914, 921-923 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 193 ]; People v. Zapata (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 903, 911-913 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 171 ].) In this last connection the statute provided for a hearing under the proscribed circumstances “unless in the opinion of the judge the defendant’s record and probation report indicate such a pattern of criminality that he does not constitute a fit subject for commitment under this section.” The judge in revok *144 ing the order for a hearing made an express finding to t…
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Williams
Cal. Ct. App. · 1965 · confidence medium
(In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ].) There being no reversible error, the judgment is accordingly affirmed.
examined Cited "see" People v. Nocelotl (3×)
Cal. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
Defense counsel’s erroneous advice did not require the court to grant appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea. “[T]he advice, persuasion, or expression of opinion of [a defendant’s] attorney will not suffice to vitiate his plea, in the absence of some showing of corroboration by a responsible state officer [citations].” (People v. Toth (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 130, 132 [ 36 Cal.Rptr. 417 ]; see In re Nunez (1965) 62 Cal.2d 234, 236 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ] [“In the absence of an allegation of state involvement, petitioner’s allegation that counsel improperly induced him to …
examined Cited "see" In Re Teran (3×)
Cal. · 1966 · signal: see · confidence high
(Cf. People v. Wallace, 59 Cal.2d 548 , 551 et seq. [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 449 , 381 P.2d 185 ]; see In re Nunez 62 Cal.2d 234, 235 [ 42 Cal.Rptr. 6 , 397 P.2d 998 ].) Whether or not the claim can now be made, it does not warrant relief.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re JOE NUNEZ on Habeas Corpus
Crim. 8325.
California Supreme Court.
Jan 15, 1965.
397 P.2d 998
Joe Nunez, in pro. per., and Paul Ackerman, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Petitioner., Thomas C. Lynch, Attorney General, William E. James, Assistant Attorney General, and George J. Roth, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondent.
Traynor.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published
TRAYNOR, C. J.

Petitioner was charged by information with unlawful possession of narcotics (Health & Saf. Code, § 11500) and with a prior conviction for the same offense. On February 19, 1962, represented by retained counsel, he withdrew a plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the charge. On May 3,1962, he again appeared with counsel and the court entered a judgment of conviction, found the prior conviction true, and sentenced him to prison. He did not appeal.

After an unexplained delay of 19 months, petitioner, confined at San Quentin, mailed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea to the trial court in Los Angeles. The court treated this motion as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. Petitioner alleged that he was denied the effective aid of counsel in that counsel induced him to abandon a defense that incriminating evidence had been produced by an illegal search, and to enter a guilty plea, with the understanding that petitioner would be committed to the narcotics addict rehabilitation program. (Pen. Code, § 6451.) Petitioner requested that counsel be appointed at the coram nobis hearing. The trial court refused to appoint counsel to represent him, held a hearing at which his former lawyer testified, and denied the petition. Petitioner did not appeal.

On October 26, 1964, he filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the judge who convicted him failed to consider his suitability for the narcotics rehabilitation program, and that he was improperly denied counsel at the coram nobis hearing. We issued an order to show cause.

Petitioner’s contention that the judge who convicted him failed to exercise his discretion under section 6451 of the Penal Code could have been raised on direct appeal from[*236] the judgment of conviction. Whether or not habeas corpus will lie in such a situation, the record clearly demonstrates that the contention is without merit. The probation report set forth petitioner’s criminal record in some detail. At the probation hearing, the trial judge stated that he had read the report and determined that petitioner was not suitable for the program. (Cf. People v. Wallace, 59 Cal.2d 548, 553 [30 Cal.Rptr. 449, 381 P.2d 185].)

Petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied counsel at the coram nobis hearing is governed by the rules set forth in People v. Shipman, ante, p. 226 [42 Cal.Rptr. 1, 397 P.2d 993]. In the absence of an allegation of state involvement, petitioner’s allegation that counsel improperly induced him to enter a guilty plea does not state a ground for coram nobis relief. (See In re Atchley, 48 Cal.2d 408, 418 [310 P.2d 15]; People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422, 443 [154 P.2d 657]; In re Hough, 24 Cal.2d 522, 533 [150 P.2d 448]; People v. Ynostroza, 105 Cal.App.2d 332, 333 [232 P.2d 913].) Moreover, the record shows that petitioner wished to be referred to the narcotics rehabilitation program. Since criminal proceedings were then in progress and section 6451 of the Penal Code requires a conviction before a judge may consider such a referral, a guilty plea was the most expeditious way to invoke the court’s discretion. Hence it does not appear that counsel erred in recommending a plea of guilty. Since the trial court granted a hearing on the coram nobis petition, however, it should have appointed counsel under the rules set forth in the Shipman case. But since it also clearly appears that the trial court would have been fully justified in denying the petition summarily, petitioner has shown no prejudice from the failure to appoint counsel at the hearing. Accordingly, no purpose would be served by vacating the order denying the petition for coram nobis.

The order to show cause is discharged, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.

MeComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Peek, J., Burke, J., and Schauer, J., * concurred.

*

Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.