In Re Nunez
Petitioner was charged by information with unlawful possession of narcotics (
After an unexplained delay of 19 months, petitioner, confined at San Quentin, mailed a motion to withdraw the guilty plea to the trial court in Los Angeles. The court treated this motion as a petition for a writ of error
coram nobis.
Petitioner alleged that he was denied the effective aid of counsel in that counsel induced him to abandon a defense that incriminating evidence had been produced by an illegal search, and to enter a guilty plea, with the understanding that petitioner would be committed to the narcotics addict rehabilitation program. (
On October 26, 1964, he filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the judge who convicted him failed to consider his suitability for the narcotics rehabilitation program, and that he was improperly denied counsel at the coram nobis hearing. We issued an order to show cause.
Petitioner’s contention that the judge who convicted him failed to exercise his discretion under
Petitioner’s contention that he was improperly denied counsel at the
coram nobis
hearing is governed by the rules set forth in
People
v.
Shipman, ante,
p. 226 [
The order to show cause is discharged, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
MeComb, J., Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Peek, J., Burke, J., and Schauer, J., * concurred.
Notes
Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.