Opinion
C060164
5-15-2009
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DWAYNE MEREDITH, Defendant and Appellant.
Not to be Published
Defendant Dwayne Meredith filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in the trial court challenging his 1993 conviction for first degree burglary. The 1993 conviction was subsequently used to enhance defendants prison sentence in Sacramento County Superior Court case No. 06F11232.
Defendant appealed from the judgment in Sacramento County case No. 06F11232 and the matter is currently pending before this court in case No. C057232. On defendants motion, we have taken judicial notice of the record and briefs in that case.
In his writ petition, defendant alleged that he was factually innocent of the crime, he was misled by his counsel regarding the strength of the prosecutions case against him, his counsel pressured him into entering into the plea agreement, the plea was to a misdemeanor (not a felony) as now reflected in the record, he did not learn that the judgment had been entered as a felony until over a decade later, and he was not advised pursuant to Boykin-Tahl prior to entering into the plea agreement.
Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 ; In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122.
The trial court denied defendants writ petition. The court noted that coram nobis is available only when no other remedy exists, from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which, through no fault or negligence of defendant, was not presented to the court and which would have prevented rendition of judgment if presented. (See People v. Shipman (1965) 62 Cal.2d 226, 230.) The trial court found the claims in defendants writ petition did not meet these requirements. Instead, the trial court construed defendants writ petition as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and, after analysis of each of defendants claims, denied the petition for failure to show he is entitled to any relief.
On October 7, 2008, defendant timely filed a notice of appeal from the trial courts order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis.
The denial of a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is appealable. (Pen. Code, § 1237; People v. Shorts (1948) 32 Cal.2d 502, 506-507.) Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, however, is not appealable. (In re Hochberg (1970) 2 Cal.3d 870, 876.) Thus, we review the trial courts order only as it relates to the denial of the coram nobis petition. In that regard, we affirm unless the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief. (People v. Painter (1963) 214 Cal.App.2d 93, 99; People v. Devora (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 457, 463.)
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief.
Defendant filed a supplemental brief. In his brief, defendant argues that he was maliciously prosecuted based on his race and that the prosecutor exercised peremptory challenges on the impermissible basis of race/ethnicity in violation of the federal Constitution. These contentions fail on appeal.
Neither of defendants claims is related to the petition for writ of coram nobis or even defendants 1993 burglary conviction. Instead, the contentions relate to prosecution of Sacramento County Superior Court case No. 06F11232, which is the subject of the appeal in case No. C057232. Moreover, defendants claims on appeal here were neither raised nor cognizable in the underlying petition for writ of error coram nobis.
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION
The trial courts order denying defendants petition for writ of error coram nobis is affirmed.
We concur:
SIMS, Acting P. J.
NICHOLSON, J.