People v. Del'Marmol

California Court of Appeal

People v. Del'Marmol

246 P.2d 99, 112 Cal. App. 2d 409, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1040

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedJuly 24, 1952

DocketCrim. No. 4808

StatusPublished

This text of 246 P.2d 99 (People v. Del'Marmol) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Del'Marmol, 246 P.2d 99, 112 Cal. App. 2d 409, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1040 (Cal. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

On October 31,1945, Edwin J. DePMarmol was convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of burglary; in December, 1951, he filed in said court a petition for writ of error coram nobis; the sole ground was claimed insufficiency of the evidence; the petition was denied and Del’Marmol appealed from the order.

The appeal is without merit. Since the claim of insufficiency of the evidence could have been presented and reviewed on appeal, coram nobis does not lie. (People v. Coyle, 88 Cal.App.2d 967, 970 [200 P.2d 546]; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249, 255 [232 P. 457, 36 A.L.R. 1435].) No excuse was offered for the long delay in filing the application. “ It is well settled that a showing of diligence is prerequisite to the availability of relief by motion for coram nobis.” (People v. Shorts, 32 Cal.2d 502, 512 [197 P.2d 330].)

The order is affirmed.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 21, 1952.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

On October 31,1945, Edwin J. DePMarmol was convicted in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County of burglary; in December, 1951, he filed in said court a petition for writ of error coram nobis; the sole ground was claimed insufficiency of the evidence; the petition was denied and Del’Marmol appealed from the order.

The appeal is without merit. Since the claim of insufficiency of the evidence could have been presented and reviewed on appeal, coram nobis does not lie. (People v. Coyle, 88 Cal.App.2d 967, 970 [200 P.2d 546]; People v. Reid, 195 Cal. 249, 255 [232 P. 457, 36 A.L.R. 1435].) No excuse was offered for the long delay in filing the application. “ It is well settled that a showing of diligence is prerequisite to the availability of relief by motion for coram nobis.” (People v. Shorts, 32 Cal.2d 502, 512 [197 P.2d 330].)

The order is affirmed.

Appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied August 21, 1952.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 P.2d 99, 112 Cal. App. 2d 409, 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1040, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-delmarmol-calctapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack