Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Thornton

233 Cal.App.2d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Thornton

10 Citing cases

  1. People v. Kraus

    47 Cal.App.3d 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 21 times
    In Kraus, supra, 47 Cal.App.3d 568, the defendant was sentenced on January 7, 1974, based upon his no contest plea to two sex offenses.

    If the petitioner takes an appeal in a case where the trial court properly denied the petition summarily for lack of supporting statements of fact, the appellate court may summarily dismiss the appeal. ( People v. Thornton (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 691]; accord: People v. Lampkin (1968) 259 Cal.App.2d 673, 681 [ 66 Cal.Rptr. 538]; People v. Hemphill, supra, 265 Cal.App.2d 156, 160.) In Chew, the defendant pleaded guilty to a narcotics offense in 1965 and was committed civilly as an addict.

  2. People v. Lampkin

    259 Cal.App.2d 673 (Cal. Ct. App. 1968)   Cited 8 times

    Its order made under such circumstances is not deemed to be one "affecting the substantial rights of the party" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1237, subdivision 3, and it is therefore not appealable. ( People v. Thornton, 233 Cal.App.2d 1, 3 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 691].) The appeal is dismissed.

  3. People v. Golden

    245 Cal.App.2d 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 3 times
    In People v. Golden (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 512 [ 54 Cal.Rptr. 91], the court pointed out that Penal Code section 1237.5 placed a limitation upon judgment appeals but not on appeals from the denial of coram nobis.

    The order of the superior court is not appealable. ( People v. Thornton, 233 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 691].)" This appeal must be dismissed on the same grounds.

  4. People v. Clinton

    243 Cal.App.2d 284 (Cal. Ct. App. 1966)   Cited 14 times

    [6] Since the Superior Court of Los Angeles County lacked jurisdiction to act upon defendant's motion, its order is not appealable. ( People v. Thornton, 233 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 691].) The appeal is dismissed.

  5. People v. Williams

    238 Cal.App.2d 585 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 11 times
    In People v. Williams, supra, 238 Cal.App.2d 585, this court concluded that it could not treat the appeal from the denial of motion to vacate as an application for a writ of habeas corpus because of a lack of jurisdictional basis on which to act. (238 Cal.App.2d at pp. 595-596; and see, People v. Buccheri (1969) 2 Cal.App.3d 842, 845 [ 83 Cal.Rptr. 221]; and People v. Phillips (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 423, 429 [ 69 Cal.Rptr. 675].)

    [2] Although the appealability of the order may depend on the substance of the facts alleged in or adduced in support of the petition, the matter must be entertained in any event to determine whether dismissal or review on the merits is proper. ( People v. Thomas (1959) 52 Cal.2d 521, 527-529 [ 342 P.2d 889]; People v. Banks (1959) 53 Cal.2d 370, 377-380, and fn. 5, pp. 379-381 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 669, 348 P.2d 102]; People v. Shorts (1948) 32 Cal.2d 502, 506-507 [ 197 P.2d 330]; and cf. People v. Wadkins (1965) 63 Cal.2d 110, 114 [42 Cal.Rptr. 173, 403 P.2d 429] with People v. Thornton (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 1, 3 [ 43 Cal.Rptr. 691]; and People v. Cantrell (1961) 197 Cal.App.2d 40, 45 [ 16 Cal.Rptr. 905].) For reasons hereinafter set forth it is concluded that defendant has failed to set forth facts which entitled him to any relief in proceedings of this nature; that the trial court properly summarily denied his motion, and that this appeal should be dismissed.

  6. People v. Jones

    No. B320529 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2023)

    "A trial court's denial of a coram nobis petition is an appealable order, unless the coram nobis petition failed to state a prima facie case for relief." (People v. Dubon (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 944, 950; see People v. Thornton (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 1, 3 [trial court's order denying coram nobis petition that does not allege grounds for relief "did not affect the substantial rights of the petitioner and, hence, it was not appealable"].) Thus, "[i]n an appeal from a trial court's denial of an application for the writ of error coram nobis

  7. People v. Lopez

    G052099 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 26, 2016)

    (People v. Langdon (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 595; Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Renda (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 14, 20 [order by court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void].) Because a void order does not affect the substantial rights of defendant, it is not appealable under section 1237. (People v. Thornton (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 1, 3.) We therefore dismiss the appeal.

  8. People v. Thigpen

    No. C074281 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 22, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    (Cf. People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208; People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726 [both holding untimely motion to recall sentence does not confer jurisdiction]; People v. Thornton (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 1, 2 [petition for writ of coram nobis insufficient on face does not confer jurisdiction].) Thus, if a defendant is in fact ineligible for resentencing, a denial of the petition does not affect any substantial right, and an appellate holding of defendant's ineligibility results in a lack of appellate jurisdiction over the appeal.

  9. People v. Elder

    227 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 222 times
    Finding no conflict with voter intent "even if the great majority of commitments for unlawful gun possession come within our interpretation of this eligibility criterion," but only because "not every commitment offense . . . necessarily involves being armed with the gun if the gun is not otherwise available for use . . . e.g., where it is under a defendant's dominion and control in a location not readily accessible to him at the time of its discovery

    Similarly, a petition for a writ of coram nobis that is facially insufficient does not vest a trial court with jurisdiction to grant relief; the denial of such a deficient petition as a result cannot affect the petitioner's substantial rights, and the order is not appealable. ( People v. Thornton (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 1, 2, 43 Cal.Rptr. 691.) As we have concluded above, section 1170.126 confers the right to file a recall petition only on those who are not presently serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment for a commitment conviction during the commission of which they were armed with a gun. (§§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(2), 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii).)

  10. People v. Elder

    No. C073731 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 15, 2014)

    Similarly, a petition for a writ of coram nobis that is facially insufficient does not vest a trial court with jurisdiction to grant relief; the denial of such a deficient petition as a result cannot affect the petitioner's substantial rights, and the order is not appealable. (People v. Thornton (1965) 233 Cal.App.2d 1, 2.) As we have concluded above, section 1170.126 confers the right to file a recall petition only on those who are not presently serving an indeterminate term of life imprisonment for a commitment conviction during the commission of which they were armed with a gun. (§§ 1170.126, subd. (e)(2), 667, subd. (e)(2)(C)(iii).)