 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Nash6/6/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Christopher Lamont Nash appeals from the order denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis filed after a judgment entered following his conviction by jury of aggravated mayhem (Pen. Code, § 205) with personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon (Pen. Code, § 12022, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to prison for life with the possibility of parole for aggravated mayhem, plus one year for the weapon enhancement.
In this case, we hold the trial court properly denied appellant's petition for a writ of error coram nobis.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Viewed in accordance with the usual rules on appeal (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206), the evidence established that on June 28, 1992, appellant and Dwayne Blackburn got into an argument over some cans. Blackburn had been drinking. Appellant punched Blackburn, knocking him out. Blackburn later left, returned for revenge, and appellant hit him in the back of the head with a shovel. After appellant's brother intervened, appellant and Blackburn went in different directions.
About fifteen minutes later, Blackburn and appellant were arguing again, appellant's brother intervened, and Blackburn and appellant went in different directions. Shortly thereafter, appellant, carrying a shovel, approached Blackburn in the street and stood a few feet from him. Appellant struck twice at Blackburn with what appeared to be a nail. Appellant then swung the shovel like a baseball bat at Blackburn, hitting him in the head. The blow severely injured Blackburn.
CONTENTION
Appellant contends " he trial court erred in denying appellant's petition for writ of error of coram nobis."
DISCUSSION
The Trial Court Properly Denied Appellant's Petition For A Writ Of Error Coram Nobis.
a. Pertinent Facts.
Appellant was originally convicted of aggravated mayhem (count two), and assault with a deadly weapon with personal infliction of great bodily injury (count three). (See fn. 1, ante.) Later, on November 28, 2001, appellant filed his petition for a writ of error coram nobis (hereafter, petition). The petition alleged that appellant's continued confinement was unlawful because "the sentencing judge, the District Attorney, defense counsel, and Mr. Nash erroneously believed at the time sentence was pronounced that the petitioner would be released from state prison after having served seven years of confinement." The petition, along with its exhibits, reflect the following facts, which we will discuss in chronological order.
A transcript of appellant's February 22, 1993 sentencing hearing reflects that the court stated, "As I understand it, I have to impose the indeterminant sentence of life with possibility of parole and then an additional one year enhancement and stay the imposition of sentence as to count three." The court did not then discuss granting probation.
Appellant asked that the court impose, but stay execution of, a prison sentence on count three, and asked that the court grant him probation on conditions that he serve a term in local custody and participate in a residential program. The following then occurred: "The Court: Let me just stop you for a second, [defense counsel]. You are saying that the sentence in the count two is a state prison sentence is not mandatory?" (Sic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|