P. v. Payne
Filed 5/1/07 P. v. Payne CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MYRON ATTRICE PAYNE, Defendant and Appellant. | B194785 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA004575) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert J. Schuit, Judge. Affirmed.
Maureen L. Fox, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Myron Attrice Payne appeals from an order denying his petition for writ of error coram nobis. In 1993, he pled guilty to first degree murder (Pen. Code, 187, subd. (a)) and admitted he personally used a firearm during the commission of the crime.[1] He was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life for the murder conviction plus three years for the firearm enhancement.
On August 9, 2006, appellant filed an application for: writ of error coram nobis/move to withdraw [his] plea and motion for a new trial. He asserted the trial court erred in failing to order a competency hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1368. He also claimed he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in that counsel failed to obtain a psychiatric exam and failed to present medical evidence regarding appellants mental condition. Additionally, he claimed he was denied effective assistance of counsel in that the trial court denied his motion to substitute new counsel and failed to give him an opportunity to state the reason for his request.
After review of the record, appellants court-appointed counsel filed an opening brief requesting this court to independently review the record pursuant to the holding of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.
On January 4, 2007, we advised appellant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues which he wished us to consider. On January 29, 2007, he filed a supplemental brief making numerous claims. He asserted he was denied a complete and full copy of his case transcript, that he was never informed of his right to appeal, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made and that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction.
We have examined the entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exist. In this state coram nobis is a limited remedy of narrow scope which is available (where no other remedy exists) to secure relief from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if the trial court had known it and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not then known to the court. [Citation.] A writ of error coram nobis may be granted when three requirements are met: (1) the petitioner has shown that some fact existed which, without fault of his own, was not presented to the court at the trial on the merits, and which if presented would have prevented the rendition of judgment; (2) the petitioner has shown that the newly discovered evidence does not go to the merits of the issues tried; and (3) the petitioner has shown that the facts upon which he relies were not known to him and could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered by him at any time substantially earlier than the time of his motion for the writ. [Citation.] (People v. Villa (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 473, 479.) Appellant has failed to establish the necessary requirements for coram nobis. Appellant has, by virtue of counsels compliance with the Wende procedure and our review of the record, received adequate and effective appellate review of the order entered against him in this case. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 112-113.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE, Acting P.J.
We concur:
MANELLA, J.
SUZUKAWA, J.
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
[1] The information alleged that on or about June 28, 1992, in the County of Los Angeles, appellant and Samuel Dontae Braccey willfully, unlawfully and with malice aforethought murdered William Gillard, a human being. It was further alleged that appellant personally used a firearm, a pistol, within the meaning of Penal Code sections 1203.06, subdivision (a)(1) and 12022.5, subdivision (a) also causing the offense to become a serious felony pursuant to Penal Code section 1192.7, subdivision (c)(8).
