petition for writ error in California

2025(Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1093 .) “Finally, the writ of error coram nobis is unavailable when a litigant has some other remedy at law.” (Ibid.) We review the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion.

2024(People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078 , 4 In general, “the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order.” (People v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 683 , citing In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534, 537 ; cf. People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 885, fn. 4 [reviewing court may summarily dismiss appeal if it initially determines defendant has not made a prima facie showing of merit].) 3 1091–1092 (Kim).) To obtain coram nobis relief, “(1) Petitioner must ‘show that some fact existed which, without any fault or negligence on his part, was not presen

2024(People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078 , 4 In general, “the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order.” (People v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 683 , citing In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534, 537 ; cf. People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 885, fn. 4 [reviewing court may summarily dismiss appeal if it initially determines defendant has not made a prima facie showing of merit].) 3 1091–1092 (Kim).) To obtain coram nobis relief, “(1) Petitioner must ‘show that some fact existed which, without any fault or negligence on his part, was not presen

2015And “it is well-settled law . . . that where other and adequate remedies exist[,] the writ [of error coram nobis] is not available.’ [Citation.]” (Kim, at p. 1094.) The trial court’s disposition of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order, but only if the petition makes a prima facie showing for relief. ( Dubon, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 950 .) As the California Supreme Court has explained: “In an appeal from a trial court’s denial of an application for the writ of error coram nobis, a reviewing court initially determines whether defendant has made a prima facie showing of m

2016(Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1093 ; People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1146-1147 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two]; People v. McElwee (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1352 .) The writ is “ ‘ “not intended to authorize any court to review and revise its opinions; but only to enable it to recall some adjudication made while some fact existed which, if before the court, would have prevented the rendition of the judgment,” ’ ” (italics omitted) such as a party’s death, infancy, or insanity, or that his plea was procured by means of fraud or threat of violence. ( Kim, supra, at pp. 1092, 1094 .) The

2016(See People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1147 [defendant was not entitled to coram nobis relief where the fact on which the petition was based “was not a new ‘fact’ that was undiscoverable despite the exercise of due diligence”]; People v. Gari (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 510, 520 [defendant was not entitled to coram nobis relief where he failed to “identify any new facts that were unknown to him at the time he pleaded guilty to the charged offenses”].) Grimes does not explain why he waited almost 30 years to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

2022(People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 982 [the denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is appealable “unless the petition failed to state a prima facie case for relief [citation] or the petition merely duplicated issues which had or could have been resolved in other proceedings [citations]”].) 7

2015And “it is well-settled law . . . that where other and adequate remedies exist[,] the writ [of error coram nobis] is not available.’ [Citation.]” (Kim, at p. 1094.) The trial court’s disposition of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order, but only if the petition makes a prima facie showing for relief. ( Dubon, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 950 .) As the California Supreme Court has explained: “In an appeal from a trial court’s denial of an application for the writ of error coram nobis, a reviewing court initially determines whether defendant has made a prima facie showing of m

2024(People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078 , 4 In general, “the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order.” (People v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 683 , citing In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534, 537 ; cf. People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 885, fn. 4 [reviewing court may summarily dismiss appeal if it initially determines defendant has not made a prima facie showing of merit].) 3 1091–1092 (Kim).) To obtain coram nobis relief, “(1) Petitioner must ‘show that some fact existed which, without any fault or negligence on his part, was not presen

2024(People v. Shipman (1965) 62 Cal.2d 226, 230, 232 .) We review an order denying a petition for writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion. ( Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 1095–1096.) Snowden filed his petition in April 2023, almost 22 years after he was convicted in 2001 of the subject offenses.

2015Had the facts been presented knowingly and vigorously the judgment of dismissal without prejudice would have been prevented.” Furthermore, appellant admits in his petition that he “discover[ed] the facts that would have prevented the judgment in [the first criminal case] . . . late in 2009.” He waited more than four years, until 2014, to file the coram nobis petition with the superior court in.5 Appellant therefore failed to present a prima facie showing of diligence, the third required element of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. ( Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 1098-1099; People v. Sh

2013(See People v. Shorts (1948) 32 Cal.2d 502, 505-506 ; Gallardo, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at pp. 982-983; People v. Sumner 8 (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 409, 412-413 .) Long ago, the state Supreme Court explained it thusly: “[W]anting such prima facie showing the appeal must be deemed to have as its only objective a delay in execution of the sentence under a valid final judgment, hence to be frivolous and irregular and subject to dismissal forthwith.” ( Shorts, supra, at pp. 505-506 .) The rationale for restricting the appealability of an order denying a petition for writ of error coram nobis applies wi

1991Code, § 1265).” (People v. Wadkins (1965) 63 Cal.2d 110, 113 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 173 , 403 P.2d 429 ].) Thus, “a motion to set aside a judgment of conviction and for permission to withdraw a plea of guilty may ordinarily be considered as a petition for writ of error coram nobis,. . .” (People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 594, fn. 5 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 250 , 522 P.2d 1058 ].) But in this case, judgment had not been rendered.

1991Code, § 1265).” (People v. Wadkins (1965) 63 Cal.2d 110, 113 [ 45 Cal.Rptr. 173 , 403 P.2d 429 ].) Thus, “a motion to set aside a judgment of conviction and for permission to withdraw a plea of guilty may ordinarily be considered as a petition for writ of error coram nobis,. . .” (People v. Stanworth (1974) 11 Cal.3d 588, 594, fn. 5 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 250 , 522 P.2d 1058 ].) But in this case, judgment had not been rendered.

2015And “it is well-settled law . . . that where other and adequate remedies exist[,] the writ [of error coram nobis] is not available.’ [Citation.]” (Kim, at p. 1094.) The trial court’s disposition of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order, but only if the petition makes a prima facie showing for relief. ( Dubon, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 950 .) As the California Supreme Court has explained: “In an appeal from a trial court’s denial of an application for the writ of error coram nobis, a reviewing court initially determines whether defendant has made a prima facie showing of m

2007DISCUSSION "A trial court's denial of a coram nobis petition is an appealable order, unless the coram nobis petition failed to state a prima facie case for relief, or the petition raised issues that were, or could have been, raised in other proceedings." ( People v. Dubon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 944, 950 , 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 .) "We review a trial court's denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion." (Id. at p. 951, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 914 .) 1.

2024(People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078 , 4 In general, “the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order.” (People v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 683 , citing In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534, 537 ; cf. People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 885, fn. 4 [reviewing court may summarily dismiss appeal if it initially determines defendant has not made a prima facie showing of merit].) 3 1091–1092 (Kim).) To obtain coram nobis relief, “(1) Petitioner must ‘show that some fact existed which, without any fault or negligence on his part, was not presen

2022(See People v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 683 [a “trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order”].) 5 if presented would have prevented the rendition of the judgment.” ’ ” (Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1093 , quoting People v. Shipman (1965) 62 Cal.2d 226, 230 .) Second, he must “ ‘show that the “newly discovered evidence . . . [does not go] to the merits of issues tried; issues of fact, once adjudicated, even though incorrectly, cannot be reopened except on motion for new trial.” ’ ” (Ibid.) Third, he “ ‘ “must show that the facts upon which he

2021(People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1091 (Kim).) “The grounds on which a litigant may obtain relief [through] coram nobis are narrower than on habeas corpus [citation]; the writ’s purpose ‘is to secure relief, where no other remedy exists, from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if the trial court had known it and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not then known to the court.’ ” (Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1091 ; People v. Ibanez (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 537, 544 (Ibanez) [“A writ of coram nobis is generally us

2021This burden requires the production of strong and convincing evidence.’ ” ( Ibanez, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at pp. 548–549.) The granting of a writ of error coram nobis is completely discretionary.

2016(People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 525, 531, fn. 2 [“ ‘a motion to set aside a judgment of conviction and for permission to withdraw a plea of guilty may ordinarily be considered as a petition for writ of error coram nobis’ ”]; § 1018 [upon a showing of good cause, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea before the entry of judgment].) Nothing in the record before us, however, indicates defendant ever sought to 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted. 2. withdraw his plea or had good cause to do so (People v. Sandoval (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 111, 123 [defe

2015(People v. Quesada (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 525, 531, fn. 2 , superseded by statue on other grounds [“ ‘a motion to set aside a judgment of conviction and for permission to withdraw a plea of guilty may ordinarily be considered as a petition for writ of error coram nobis’ ”]; § 1018 [upon a showing of good cause, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea before the entry of judgment].) (Wasson I, supra, 2009 Cal.App.Unpub.

1966Treating the notice of motion as a petition for writ of error coram nobis (see People v. Painter (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 93, 95 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 121 ]) the court on April 2, 1965, denied the petition.

1966Treating the notice of motion as a petition for writ of error coram nobis (see People v. Painter (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 93, 95 [ 29 Cal.Rptr. 121 ]) the court on April 2, 1965, denied the petition.

2021As a general matter, Park challenges the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction and its personal jurisdiction over him 5 A petition for writ of error coram nobis “is an attack upon a judgment which has become final and in favor of which there are strong presumptions of regularity.” (People v. Adamson (1949) 34 Cal.2d 320 , 329–330.) The petition is a limited remedy and the moving party bears a heavy burden to show that he should obtain relief.

2020Relevant law A petition for writ of error coram nobis “is an attack upon a judgment which has become final and in favor of which there are strong presumptions of regularity; the ‘petition’ is regarded as a motion to vacate the judgment; it is not a complaint nor does it initiate an independent action [citation].” (People v. Adamson (1949) 34 Cal.2d 320 , 329–330; see also People v. Sica (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 59 , 61–62.) The petition is a limited remedy and the 6 moving party bears a heavy burden to show that he is entitled to relief.

1999In that case, the defendant contended the trial court erred in its holding that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for writ of error coram nobis. ( Id., at p. 552, 118 Cal.Rptr. 755 .) The appellate court agreed and held that the trial court erred when it denied the defendant's petition for writ of coram nobis. ( Ibid. ) The court emphasized that it was the ignorance of the defendant's lawyer of the defendant's status as a resident alien, not a citizen, which constituted an unknown fact that justified coram nobis relief.

1999In that case, the defendant contended the trial court erred in its holding that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for writ of error coram nobis. ( Id., at p. 552, 118 Cal.Rptr. 755 .) The appellate court agreed and held that the trial court erred when it denied the defendant's petition for writ of coram nobis. ( Ibid. ) The court emphasized that it was the ignorance of the defendant's lawyer of the defendant's status as a resident alien, not a citizen, which constituted an unknown fact that justified coram nobis relief.

2024(People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078 , 4 In general, “the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order.” (People v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 683 , citing In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534, 537 ; cf. People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 885, fn. 4 [reviewing court may summarily dismiss appeal if it initially determines defendant has not made a prima facie showing of merit].) 3 1091–1092 (Kim).) To obtain coram nobis relief, “(1) Petitioner must ‘show that some fact existed which, without any fault or negligence on his part, was not presen

1969(People v. Griggs, 67 Cal.2d 314, 316 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 641 , 431 P.2d 225 ]; In re Horowitz, 33 Cal.2d 534, 537 [ 203 P.2d 513 ].) The reinstatement of the dismissed charges may have been an integral part of the order granting the writ, and had Dapper attacked the order on the basis of the part reinstating the charges, the entire order may have been held inseverable.

2017(People v. Welch (1964) 61 Cal.2d 786, 790 ; Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 941, fn. 5 (Betz); Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2017) §11.1, p. 11-2).) To conserve scarce judicial resources, we elect to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of error coram vobis in this court and the record in the inoperative appeal as the record in this original proceeding.

1965If the motion be viewed as a petition for writ of error coram nobis, it was not supported by a showing of an essential element, that the facts were not known to defendant prior to entry of judgment. ( People v. Welch, 61 Cal.2d 786, 791 [ 40 Cal. Rptr. 238 , 394 P.2d 926 ].) Defendant has not pointed out any error in the proceedings on the trial court up to and including the pronouncement of judgment.

2024(Id. at p. 232; see In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 780 [right to counsel attaches in postjudgment proceedings only after petitioner states a prima facie case for relief].) We review the superior court’s order denying a petition for writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion.

2021(Ibid.; see In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750, 780 [right to counsel attaches in postjudgment proceedings only after petitioner states a prima facie case for relief].) We review the superior court’s order denying a petition for writ of error coram nobis for abuse of discretion.

2021(See Central Valley Gas Storage, LLC v. Southam (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 686, 695 [“ ‘When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, “it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court” ’ ”].) 13 the absence of adequate factual allegations stating a prima facie case, counsel need not be appointed . . . .” (Id. at pp. 229, 232.) The same reasoning applies here.

2021(See Central Valley Gas Storage, LLC v. Southam (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 686, 695 [“ ‘When a point is asserted without argument and authority for the proposition, “it is deemed to be without foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court” ’ ”].) 13 the absence of adequate factual allegations stating a prima facie case, counsel need not be appointed . . . .” (Id. at pp. 229, 232.) The same reasoning applies here.

2017(People v. Welch (1964) 61 Cal.2d 786, 790 ; Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 941, fn. 5 (Betz); Appeals and Writs in Criminal Cases (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed. 2017) §11.1, p. 11-2).) To conserve scarce judicial resources, we elect to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of error coram vobis in this court and the record in the inoperative appeal as the record in this original proceeding.

2013(Betz v. Pankow (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 931, 941, fn. 5 [a petition for writ of error coram nobis is addressed to the trial court and a petition for writ of error coram vobis is addressed to the appellate court].) The trial court also denied the petition on substantive grounds, explaining: "[W]hen sentences in two or more cases are ordered to run concurrently, the 'controlling case' is the case with the longest period of imprisonment after deducting the total credits from the sentence imposed. . . .

2016(See People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1147 [defendant was not entitled to coram nobis relief where the fact on which the petition was based “was not a new ‘fact’ that was undiscoverable despite the exercise of due diligence”]; People v. Gari (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 510, 520 [defendant was not entitled to coram nobis relief where he failed to “identify any new facts that were unknown to him at the time he pleaded guilty to the charged offenses”].) Grimes does not explain why he waited almost 30 years to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis.

2013The procedure defendant did select—a nonstatutory motion to vacate the judgment or plea—is the legal equivalent of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. ( Gari, supra, 199 Cal.App.4th 510, 522 ; accord Mbaabu, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1146 .) As we stated in Mbaabu, “To be entitled to relief on a postjudgment motion to vacate the judgment, the courts have required a showing essentially identical to that required under [Penal Code] section 1018, that is, on account of duress, fraud, or other fact overreaching the free will and judgment of a defendant he is deprived of the right of a tri

2002(People v. Shorts (1948) 32 Cal.2d 502, 506-507 [ 197 P.2d 330 ]; Gallardo, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 982 ; People v. Kraus (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 568, 575, fn. 4 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 11 ]; People v. Williams (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 585, 587-588 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 67 ].) Here, the Court of Appeal found that, although defendant’s statutory motion to vacate judgment was “similar” to a petition for writ of error coram nobis, it was not the “same thing.” The parties do not claim otherwise; they do not contend that defendant’s appeal is part of an extraordinary writ proceeding.

2002(People v. Shorts (1948) 32 Cal.2d 502, 506-507 [ 197 P.2d 330 ]; Gallardo, supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 982 ; People v. Kraus (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 568, 575, fn. 4 [ 121 Cal.Rptr. 11 ]; People v. Williams (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 585, 587-588 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 67 ].) Here, the Court of Appeal found that, although defendant’s statutory motion to vacate judgment was “similar” to a petition for writ of error coram nobis, it was not the “same thing.” The parties do not claim otherwise; they do not contend that defendant’s appeal is part of an extraordinary writ proceeding.

2007NONSTATUTORY MOTION TO VACATE A nonstatutory motion to vacate a judgment is considered the equivalent of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. ( People v. Miranda, supra, 123 Cal. App.4th 1124, 1132, fn. 6 , 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 610 ; People v. Carty (2003) 110 Cal. App.4th 1518, 1523, 1526-1527 , 2 Cal. Rptr.3d 851 ( Carty ); see People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876 , 885-886 & fn. 4, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 76 , 50 P.3d 781 , ( Totari ).) Defendant nevertheless argues that his motion was something different from a coram nobis petition—something that allows him to challenge the judgment based on inef

2007NONSTATUTORY MOTION TO VACATE A nonstatutory motion to vacate a judgment is considered the equivalent of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. ( People v. Miranda, supra, 123 Cal. App.4th 1124, 1132, fn. 6 , 20 Cal.Rptr.3d 610 ; People v. Carty (2003) 110 Cal. App.4th 1518, 1523, 1526-1527 , 2 Cal. Rptr.3d 851 ( Carty ); see People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876 , 885-886 & fn. 4, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 76 , 50 P.3d 781 , ( Totari ).) Defendant nevertheless argues that his motion was something different from a coram nobis petition—something that allows him to challenge the judgment based on inef

2020Relevant law A petition for writ of error coram nobis “is an attack upon a judgment which has become final and in favor of which there are strong presumptions of regularity; the ‘petition’ is regarded as a motion to vacate the judgment; it is not a complaint nor does it initiate an independent action [citation].” (People v. Adamson (1949) 34 Cal.2d 320 , 329–330; see also People v. Sica (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 59 , 61–62.) The petition is a limited remedy and the 6 moving party bears a heavy burden to show that he is entitled to relief.

1966(In re Paiva (1948) 31 Cal.2d 503, 510 [ 190 P.2d 604 ]; People v. Sparks (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 120 [ 246 P.2d 64 ].) In People v. Sica (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 59 [ 253 P.2d 75 ], the court held: “A careful reading of article VI, section 5, discloses no intimation that an application in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis belongs to that class of proceedings over which original jurisdiction is vested in the superior court.” (Id. at p. 61.) Hence the appellate department of the superior court would not exceed its jurisdiction in adjudicating a petition for writ of error coram nobis brought