People v. Grimes CA2/7
B263545
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 9, 2016Background
- In 1984 Grimes pleaded no contest to attempted burglary and related charges; the plea colloquy included advisements and an expressed understanding of consequences.
- In March 1985 the court granted probation with 365 days jail condition; in December 1986 the court revoked probation and sentenced Grimes to two years in prison on the attempted burglary count.
- Grimes did not appeal the 1986 revocation/sentence.
- In February 2015 (nearly 30 years later) Grimes filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging the original plea court failed to determine the degree of attempted burglary and that the proper degree was second degree; thus the 1986 two-year sentence for attempted first degree burglary was unauthorized.
- The trial court denied the coram nobis petition as untimely, procedurally barred, and meritless on the merits based on the charging documents, preliminary hearing record, and plea colloquy showing first-degree attempted burglary.
- Grimes appealed the denial; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding procedural bars (lack of diligence and failure to use available remedies) precluded coram nobis relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of coram nobis relief | People argued the petition was procedurally defective and lacked merit | Grimes argued coram nobis could correct an unauthorized sentence because the plea court failed to fix the degree, making his sentence unauthorized | Coram nobis denied: petitioner failed to show due diligence or exhaustion of other remedies; claim also lacked merit on record |
| Whether failure to determine degree at plea required treating offense as lesser degree under §1192 | People argued record (complaint, preliminary hearing, plea) established first-degree attempted burglary | Grimes argued absence of explicit degree at plea meant degree defaults to lesser (second degree) under §1192 | Court held record demonstrated first-degree attempted burglary and an adequate factual basis for the plea |
| Timeliness / diligence for coram nobis after sentencing | People argued nearly 30‑year delay showed lack of due diligence and the alleged fact was known or discoverable earlier | Grimes did not provide explanation for the delay | Court held Grimes failed to show due diligence or when the claim was discovered, barring relief |
| Availability of other remedies (appeal, habeas) before coram nobis | People argued petitioner could have appealed or sought habeas at relevant times and thus coram nobis is not available | Grimes did not pursue direct appeal or timely habeas and offered no excuse | Court held failure to use other remedies (and prior untimely habeas petition) bars coram nobis; piecemeal presentation noted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078 (discussion of coram nobis procedural requirements and standards)
- People v. Shipman, 62 Cal.2d 226 (scope and essentials of coram nobis)
- People v. McElwee, 128 Cal.App.4th 1348 (standard of review for coram nobis denial)
- People v. Mbaabu, 213 Cal.App.4th 1139 (coram nobis unavailable where alleged fact was discoverable earlier)
- People v. Gari, 199 Cal.App.4th 510 (defendant not entitled to coram nobis for facts known at time of plea)