From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hughes

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Jul 3, 2008
No. H030788 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2008)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY WAYNE HUGHES, Defendant and Appellant. H030788 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District July 3, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Monterey County Super. Ct. No. SS990390

Rushing, P.J.

Defendant, Timothy Wayne Hughes appeals from an order denying a petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In May 2000, defendant was convicted of a total of 36 counts including multiple counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)), rape with a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a)) and kidnapping (§ 207, subd. (a)). A number of enhancement allegations were also found to be true. Defendant was sentenced to 268 years to life in state prison. On appeal, this court struck two 25 year to life terms imposed. As a result, the defendant’s sentence was reduced to a term of 215 years and four months to life.

In August 2006, appellant filed a motion to vacate/petition for writ of error coram nobis. In the petition, the appellant argued that the prosecutor had violated his constitutional rights by not complying with pleading requirements, that the convictions and sentence are in excess of jurisdiction of the court, illegal and void, and that his sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. He also contended that he received ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel, that the prosecutor violated his legal and ethical duty to “seek justice” and that under the circumstances, he should have been found “not guilty” on all counts charged. Finding that the defendant failed to establish entitlement to relief, the trial court denied the motion. Specifically, the trial court found that defendant had failed to show that there was a factual error outside the record at the time of judgment (People v. Shipman (1965) 62 Cal.2d 226, 230), and he failed to sufficiently explain the six year delay in bringing the motion. (People v. Krout (1949) 90 Cal.App.2d 205, 209.) This timely appeal ensued. We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court.

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief which states the case and the facts but raises no specific issues. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument in his own behalf within 30 days. In response defendant has filed a multitude of motions and requests. He filed a motion to augment the record (Oct. 9, 2007) and several motions to relieve appellate counsel (Oct. 12, 2007, Jan. 3. 2008, Apr. 4, 2008). We granted the motion to augment and directed appellate counsel to review the augmented record to determine whether the augmented record raised any issues in this appeal. Counsel submitted a letter brief, stating that the augmented record did not raise any arguable issues. We subsequently denied the motion to relieve appellate counsel.

In the interim, appellant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal (Oct. 29, 2007), a response to counsel’s Wende brief (Nov. 26, 2007), a request for judicial notice (Dec. 06, 2007), a supplement to motion for judgment of acquittal (Dec. 12, 2007), a second supplemental motion for judgment of acquittal (Jan. 16, 2008); an emergency motion for judicial notice of 5th, 6th & 14th Amendments (Jan. 29, 2008), an emergency motion for severance of his motion for acquittal from the appeal (Feb. 4, 2008), an emergency motion (Feb. 20, 2008), and a motion for immediate protective order (May 29, 2008). We ordered the motion for judgment of acquittal considered with the appeal.

People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d. 436.

We find that defendant’s supplemental brief fails to raise an arguable issue on appeal warranting further briefing by the parties. However, pursuant to our duty to review defendant’s contentions, we address them briefly below. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal 4th 106.)

In his supplemental brief, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis by applying the coram nobis standard versus a broader motion to vacate standard, by summarily denying the petition without appointing counsel or affording a full hearing and by finding the petition untimely. On appeal from a petition for writ of error coram nobis, our review is limited to the showing made before the trial court. (People v. Crouch (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 64, 67.)

Defendant argues that the trial court should have applied a more liberal motion to vacate standard to his petition. A motion to vacate or set aside judgment, he contends, may be granted on “fundamental grounds outside the scope . . . of the common law writ of error coram nobis” where the judgment is void on jurisdictional grounds. There is no such differing standard for motions to vacate judgment. “For better or worse, the [two] terms . . . are often used interchangeably and the two procedures are similar in scope and effect.” (People v. Gallardo (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 982.) A motion to vacate or set aside judgment “ ‘is in the nature of, and is subject to the rules governing, an application for a writ of coram nobis.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Thomas (1955) 45 Cal.2d 433, 439.) A writ of error coram nobis is “of narrow scope” and is generally used to bring factual errors or omissions—not legal errors—to the court’s attention. The only exception to this rule occurs where the error is jurisdictional, such as a complete failure of subject matter jurisdiction. (People v. Ibanez (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 537, 547.)

Although defendant pleads in his petition that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose sentence because of constitutionally defective pleadings, the trial court properly found that the defendant has failed to establish his entitlement to relief. “A petition for writ of error coram nobis places the burden of proof to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the validity of the judgment on the petitioner. This burden requires the production of strong and convincing evidence. A mere naked allegation that a constitutional right has been invaded will not suffice.” (People v. Stapleton (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 512, 513.) Because any alleged errors in the accusatory pleadings existed both at the time of judgment, and at the time of the initial appeal, defendant has not set forth any newly discovered facts which, if known at the time, would have deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to impose judgment or sentence. Nor do petitioner’s allegations that the District Attorney suppressed material exculpatory evidence carry his burden. According to the defendant, the alleged evidence “suppressed” is state and federal case law which he did not discover during his initial years of imprisonment. First, case law is not exculpatory evidence. Second, coram nobis cannot issue to correct legal errors. Even if this undisclosed case law were somehow relevant to the court’s jurisdiction, defendant has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to coram nobis relief.

Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in finding lack of diligence in bringing the petition. He contends that there is no time limitation on an action to vacate an unauthorized sentence, and further, he argues that, because he is an indigent, self-represented litigant the trial court should have held him to a less stringent standard. While there may be no specific time limitation for bringing a petition for writ of coram nobis, there is a requirement that a petitioner show diligence. Specifically, that the “facts upon which he relies were not known to him and could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered by him at any time substantially earlier than the time of his motion for the writ.” (People v. Castaneda (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1619; People v. Gallardo, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 987.) Here, the defendant waited nearly six years after his initial sentence and three years after his appeal was concluded to bring this petition. His only explanation is that he was not aware of the relevant case law earlier. In similar circumstances, eight months has been held to be too long. (People v. Krout, supra, 90 Cal.App.2d at p. 209.) His claims of being an “amateur” and “uneducated” are insufficient to show that the six year delay was reasonable. A self-representing party is due the same consideration as any other party from trial and appellate courts, but no greater. (Monastero v. Los Angeles Transit Co. (1955) 131 Cal.App.2d 156, 160; Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1056.) Further, his prolific filings in this court within the year since his counsel filed the Wende brief, including his pro se 54 page supplemental brief, tend to refute his claim that he lacked the ability or legal knowledge to bring this petition any earlier.

Based on defendant’s supplemental brief, we can find no cognizable error by the trial court in denying his petition, and therefore find no arguable issue on appeal. Pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, and People v. Kelly, supra, 40 Cal 4th 106 we have also independently reviewed the entire record and have concluded that there is no arguable issue on appeal.

The motion for judgment of acquittal raises substantially the same arguments as those raised in the petition for writ of coram nobis below and those raised in the defendant’s supplemental brief in the instant appeal. Even assuming we had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought more than seven years after judgment was rendered, we find no merit to the motion.

Disposition

The judgment is affirmed. The motion for judgment of acquittal is denied.

WE CONCUR: PREMO, J., ELIA, J.


Summaries of

People v. Hughes

California Court of Appeals, Sixth District
Jul 3, 2008
No. H030788 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Hughes

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY WAYNE HUGHES, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Sixth District

Date published: Jul 3, 2008

Citations

No. H030788 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2008)

Citing Cases

People v. Hughes

Thereafter, this court again affirmed the validity of the sentence in an appeal from an order denying…