[5] On appeal from denial of a motion to vacate a judgment of conviction, where the evidence before the trial court is conflicting, it is the duty of the appellate court to accept that version of the evidence supporting a denial of his motion. ( People v. Ryan, 118 Cal.App.2d 144 [ 257 P.2d 474]; People v. O'Connor, 114 Cal.App.2d 723 [ 251 P.2d 64]; People v. O'Malley, 63 Cal.App.2d 646 [ 147 P.2d 422]; People v. Savin, 37 Cal.App.2d 105 [ 98 P.2d 773].) [6] Nor does the record support appellant's contention that he was not informed of the charge against him and not informed of the right of counsel.
Finally, it may well be said that in this case petitioner was granted considerable latitude in his coram nobis proceeding in view of the limitations upon the relief which may be given in such a proceeding. See People v. Tuthill, 32 Cal.2d 819, 821-822 [ 198 P.2d 505]; In re Lindley, 29 Cal.2d 709, 724-726 [ 177 P.2d 918]; People v. Mendez, 28 Cal.2d 686, 688 [ 171 P.2d 425]; People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422, 442 [ 154 P.2d 657]; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249, 258 [ 232 P. 457, 36 A.L.A. 1435]; People v. Martinez, supra, at pp. 771, 773-774; People v. Coyle, 88 Cal.App.2d 967, 970-971 [ 200 P.2d 546]; People v. O'Malley, 63 Cal.App.2d 646, 648 [ 147 P.2d 422]. We find no error.