People v. Forest
A148330
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 7, 2017Background
- In Nov. 2006 Robert Forest pointed a .32 handgun at Stanley Douglass; Forest was arrested and held to answer for felony assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code §245(a)(2)).
- The prosecutor dismissed the information for insufficient evidence in Jan. 2008; Forest sought a judicial finding of factual innocence under Penal Code §851.8, which the superior court denied in Oct. 2008; that denial was affirmed on appeal and review was denied by the California Supreme Court.
- In 2016 Forest filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis in superior court seeking to vacate the 2008 denial; the superior court ruled on it but the Court of Appeal treated the inoperative appeal as an original coram vobis petition in the appellate court.
- Forest argued newly discovered "facts": (1) a 2015 unsworn retraction by former DA Meredith Lintott; (2) Sergeant Brandon Lee’s 2014 deposition showing Lee opined there was no probable cause and that his report was altered; and (3) a Mendocino deputy DA’s (Sequeira) stipulation/statement that Forest is factually innocent.
- The appellate court applied the statutory allocation of jurisdiction for coram nobis/vobis (Cal. Penal Code §1265) and reviewed the petition de novo to decide whether the proffered new facts warranted coram vobis relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate jurisdiction to hear coram nobis/vobis petition | People: section 1265 gives appellate court exclusive jurisdiction once judgment was appealed | Forest: superior court could adjudicate his 2016 coram nobis petition | Held for People: appellate court has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions to vacate a judgment it affirmed; court treated the appeal as an original coram vobis petition in this court |
| Standard for coram nobis/coram vobis relief | People: relief requires newly discovered facts that, without fault, would have prevented rendition of judgment and must undermine the prosecution’s entire case | Forest: his proffered materials (retraction, depo, DA stipulation) are newly discovered facts warranting relief | Held for People: coram vobis requires (per Shipman) three elements and that new evidence undermine the prosecution’s case; standard applied de novo |
| Lintott’s 2015 retraction | People: Lintott’s statement is inadmissible/new legal opinion, unsworn and made in settlement; it does not constitute a factual basis to reopen the case | Forest: Lintott’s retraction confirms he did not commit the assault and is a newly discovered fact undermining the prosecution’s case | Held for People: retraction is an opinion/legal conclusion (not a correctible factual error), unsworn and of dubious provenance, and would not have prevented rendition of judgment |
| Lee deposition and Sequeira stipulation | People: Lee’s opinions and Sequeira’s legal opinion are not newly discovered facts that unerringly point to innocence; Lee’s views were known or discoverable earlier and diligence was lacking | Forest: Lee’s sworn deposition shows lack of probable cause and report alteration; Sequeira’s stipulation shows prosecutorial concurrence—together they compel coram vobis relief | Held for People: Lee’s testimony is opinion and largely known earlier (no due diligence), alleged report alteration did not require coram vobis relief, and Sequeira’s statement is legal/opinion evidence dependent on Lintott/Lee materials—which themselves fail to meet coram vobis standards; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (clarifies limitations on coram nobis and availability of remedies)
- People v. Shipman, 62 Cal.2d 226 (establishes three requirements for coram nobis relief)
- In re Lindley, 29 Cal.2d 709 (new evidence must substantially undermine the prosecution's case)
- People v. Esquibel, 44 Cal.App.3d 591 (victim’s change of opinion is not a factual basis for coram nobis)
- People v. Adair, 29 Cal.4th 895 (explains §851.8 factual innocence standard)
- In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (newly discovered evidence must undermine the entire case to warrant collateral relief)
Disposition: Petition for writ of error coram vobis denied on the merits.