Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert P. O’Neill, Judge, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA029061
James Michael Myron, in pro. per.; Janice Wellborn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
MALLANO, P. J.
In September 1997, James M. Myron was convicted of making terrorist threats, attempted extortion, malicious possession of a facsimile bomb, kidnapping for ransom, and false imprisonment. He appealed, alleging, among other claims, that his waiver of his right to counsel was invalid because (1) the municipal court did not adequately advise him regarding the risks of self-representation, that his opponent at trial would be experienced and prepared, and that he had no right to standby, advisory, or cocounsel; (2) the municipal court did not determine that he in fact understood the charges against him and the potential penal consequences if he lost at trial; and (3) the superior court did not advise him of the dangers of self-representation and obtain a waiver of his right to counsel. This court found no merit in the first two claims enumerated in the prior sentence and found the third harmless. We modified Myron’s sentence with respect to one count, but otherwise affirmed. (People v. Myron (Jan. 22, 2001, B118440) [nonpub. opn.].)
On December 2, 2008, Myron filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the trial court. He alleged that the municipal court improperly granted him propria persona status and the superior court failed “to conduct a proper Faretta [v. California (1975) 422 U.S. 806 [95 S.Ct. 2525]] hearing or make a factual finding” that he had knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The trial court denied the petition the day it was filed, and Myron appealed from that order.
We appointed counsel to represent Myron on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. On July 17, 2009, Myron filed his supplemental brief, arguing that this court’s decision on Myron’s appeal was erroneous in several respects, he was not advised of the charges until he was granted propria persona status, he was “never properly rearraigned” on the amended information, no new waiver of counsel was obtained after the amended information was filed, and the attorney who represented him in his prior appeal rendered ineffective assistance.
Myron’s petition was improperly filed in the trial court. Where a judgment has been affirmed on appeal, a petition for a writ of error coram nobis must be filed in the court that affirmed the judgment. (Pen. Code, § 1265, subd. (a).) To place this case in the proper procedural posture, we deem Myron’s appeal from the trial court’s ruling to be an original petition in this court for a writ of error coram vobis. (See People v. Brady (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 81, 83 [appeal from trial court’s ruling on petition for writ of error coram nobis properly treated as coram vobis petition in the appellate court].)
The claims Myron raises in his petition were raised in his appeal, could have been raised on appeal, or could have been raised in a petition for rehearing, review, or a writ of habeas corpus following the filing of the appellate opinion in B118440. Because Myron had other remedies, his claims are not a proper basis for a petition for writ of error coram nobis or coram vobis. (People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1093, 1099.) “‘The writ of error coram nobis is not a catch-all by which those convicted may litigate and relitigate the propriety of their convictions ad infinitum. In the vast majority of cases a trial followed by a motion for a new trial and an appeal affords adequate protection to those accused of crime. The writ of error coram nobis serves a limited and useful purpose. It will be used to correct errors of fact which could not be corrected in any other manner. But it is well-settled law in this and in other states that where other and adequate remedies exist the writ is not available.’” (Id. at p. 1094.) In addition, a coram nobis or coram vobis petition may raise only errors of fact, not errors of law. (Id. at p. 1093.) The claims Myron asserts are legal in nature, not factual.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that Myron’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed; the writ petition is denied.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, J., CHANEY, J.