Skip to content
Name: People v. Forest
Case #: A148330
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 10/25/2017

Petition for writ of error coram vobis denied where petitioner's "new facts" were actually legal opinions. In 2006 Forest was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2)). He was bound over after a preliminary hearing. His Penal Code section 995 motion to dismiss the charge was denied. However, prior to trial, the prosecution moved to dismiss the charge based on insufficient evidence and the trial court granted the motion. Forest's subsequent petition for a finding of factual innocence (Pen. Code, § 851.8, subd. (c)) was denied and his appeal from that decision was unsuccessful.…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Aguilar
Case #: B252036
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/18/2014

Felon who had fully served his state sentence and was in federal custody facing deportation was unable to vacate plea based on ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) because all potential remedies were unavailable. Aguilar, a lawful resident alien, pled nolo contendere to illegal possession of a gun in 2005. He completed his one day in custody and three years' probation. He was later taken into federal custody to face deportation because of the conviction. He filed a motion in state court to vacate the plea based on IAC because his attorney failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Mbaabu
Case #: E055810
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/14/2013

A motion to vacate judgment in the nature of a petition for writ of error corum nobis may not be used to present an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel failure to advise defendant of the immigration consequences of a plea. Defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422). He was not advised that a sentence of 365 days would result in the offense constituting an aggravated felony under federal immigration law, which would lead to his removal from the U.S. Defendant sought to withdraw his plea more than a year after entry, claiming…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Gari
Case #: G044493
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 09/12/2011

The entry of a plea of guilty, without paying heed to the dates alleged and without knowledge of the legal significance of the plea to a revocation of citizenship, may not be set aside through a petition for writ of coram nobis or by a motion to withdraw the plea based on Penal Code section 1016.5. Gari made representations on his citizenship application that he had not committed any crimes since filing his petition. However, he later pled guilty to ten counts of child molestation which included dates covered by his citizenship petition. Once the federal authorities initiated proceedings to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kim
Case #: S153183
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 03/16/2009

A writ of coram nobis is not an appropriate remedy where there was no unknown mistake in fact to prevent the rendition of the judgment. Kim was a legal resident but not a citizen of the United States when he suffered multiple criminal convictions. The federal government sought to deport him based on the convictions, and Kim petitioned for a writ of error coram nobis, seeking to vacate the convictions which triggered the deportation proceedings based on his unawareness of the immigration consequences of his plea. The California Supreme Court granted review to address whether persons in similar situations are…

View Full Summary
Name: United States v. Riedl
Case #: 06-10424
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 08/06/2007

Coram nobis relief is not available to a petitioner who fails to establish a legitimate reason to justify a delay in attacking a conviction.

Petitioner filed a writ of coram nobis attacking her money laundering conviction more than six years after she had been convicted. She attributed the delay in filing the writ to her five-year incarceration, her subsequent deportation, the forfeiture of some of her properties, and her diminished capacity. The Ninth Circuit reiterated that in Hirabayashi v. United States (9th Cir. 1997) 828 F.2d 591, it set forth factors which were predicates to coram nobis relief,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Villa
Case #: A111891
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/09/2007
Subsequent History: Review granted 6/13/07: S151561

A petition for writ of coram nobis is the vehicle utilized to correct errors of fact as distinguished from errors of law. A mistaken belief by defense counsel as to the legal consequences of immigration status is a mistake of law and does not meet the criteria for review by coram nobis. Further, as a general proposition, review of constitutional issues is outside of coram nobis and, therefore a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on improper advice regarding the immigration consequences of a plea cannot be asserted via coram nobis. The appropriate means to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Carty
Case #: B164008
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/31/2003

The defendant filed a writ of coram nobis on the ground that because the court failed to advise him of the immigration consequences of his plea as required by Penal Code section 1016.5, subdivision (a), he was unaware of the consequences of his plea. The appellate court held the writ was properly denied, because the correct remedy was a statutory motion to vacate the judgment under Penal Code section 1016.5, subdivision (b). However, the court remanded to the trial court for consideration of the petition as a statutory…

View Full Summary
Name: Mendez v. Superior Court
Case #: B145701
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/07/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. of opn. at 88 Cal.App.4th 238f; rev. den. 5/23/01

Petitioner had pleaded guilty after Officer Mack testified at the preliminary hearing that petitioner had sold drugs to Mack. Years later, Officer Mack pleaded guilty to bank robbery and was tangentially related to the Rampart scandal. Since petitioner was no longer on parole, habeas corpus was not available to him. He filed a petition for coram nobis, alleging he was innocent and that his arrest and conviction were based solely on the credibility of Officer Mack. Absent extrinsic fraud or duress, a judgment predicated on perjured testimony cannot be attacked by a petition for a writ…

View Full Summary