Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE v. SORENSEN.
Appellant was convicted on October 2, 1945 of violations of section 288 Penal Code and of section 702 Welfare & Institutions Code and is now confined in the State penitentiary. On August 1, 1951 he filed in the Superior Court in pro. per. a petition for a writ of error coram nobis and this appeal is taken from the order of that court denying his petition.
The court appointed counsel to represent the appellant on this appeal and such counsel urges the following points: From his petition it appears that appellant was denied a jury trial and a public trial by reason of the fraud of his counsel, and of any trial on the merits because of his counsel's failure to investigate the facts and produce witnesses suggested to his counsel by appellant.
Since the decision in People v. Adamson, 34 Cal.2d 320, 210 P.2d 13 it appears to be settled that ‘habeas corpus * * * has become the proper remedy to attack collaterally a judgment of conviction which has been obtained in violation of fundamental constitutional rights.’ 34 Cal.2d page 327, 210 P.2d at page 16.
Appellant's petition is quite sketchy but it may be spelled out from it that the public defender through an assistant contrary to appellant's expressed wish waived a jury trial and consented to the exclusion of the public from the trial and failed to produce witnesses (neither the names of whon nor what they would have testified to being set out in the petition) suggested by appellant. If these facts if proved would entitle petitioner to any relief especially at this late date, People v. Adamson, supra, makes clear that that relief must be sought by habeas corpus and not by coram nobis.
Order affirmed.
DOOLING, Justice.
NOURSE, P. J., and GOODELL, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Cr. 2804.
Decided: May 28, 1952
Court: District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)