From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Morgan

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
May 11, 2009
No. D053341 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 11, 2009)

Opinion


THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOREN MORGAN, Defendant and Appellant. D053341 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division May 11, 2009

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. CR68986, Albert T. Harutunian III, Judge.

HALLER, J.

In 1984 Loren Morgan pleaded guilty to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187). The court sentenced him to 15 years to life in prison. He did not appeal, but over the years filed several unsuccessful habeas corpus petitions. In 2002 he filed a petition for writ of coram nobis. The trial court denied the petition and in 2004 this court dismissed Morgan's appeal from the denial order. In 2008 Morgan filed another petition for writ of coram nobis. It challenged the trial court's denial of the 2002 petition, arguing it was erroneously based on the one-year statute of limitations in title 28 United States Code section 2244(d). The trial court denied the 2008 petition. Morgan appeals. We affirm.

The record does not disclose the facts of the offense.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. He presents no argument for reversal, but asks this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, he lists, as a possible but not arguable issue, whether the court erred by denying Morgan's petition for writ of coram nobis.

We granted Morgan permission to file a brief on his own behalf. He has responded, arguing his plea was induced by the promise he would serve no more than 10 years in prison and the courts erred by denying his subsequent attempts to enforce the plea agreement. Before filing the petition for writ of coram nobis at issue here, Morgan made this same argument at least four times, three times in habeas corpus petitions and once in an earlier petition for writ of coram nobis. Although his procedural approach has varied, his argument remains the same and each time it has been rejected. The primary reasons for the rejections were that his requests for relief were too late and he did not provide evidence adequate to sustain his factual claims. This appeal arises out of Morgan's fifth assertion of the argument, this time in a petition for writ of coram nobis. The petition did not allege any changed facts or law that would warrant the granting of the petition. Morgan's argument is repetitive and continues to be without merit.

A review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, including the possible issue listed pursuant to Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738, has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issue. Morgan has been competently represented by counsel on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., McINTYRE, J.


Summaries of

People v. Morgan

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
May 11, 2009
No. D053341 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 11, 2009)
Case details for

People v. Morgan

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOREN MORGAN, Defendant and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: May 11, 2009

Citations

No. D053341 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 11, 2009)