 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Villarama2/25/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellants Michael D. Villarama and Jose Contreras appeal from orders denying their petitions for writ of error coram nobis. In May 2000, appellant Villarama attacked the validity of his 1996 conviction for possession of phencyclidine (PCP) in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377, subdivision (a), following his plea of guilty. Also in May 2000, appellant Contreras attacked the validity of his 1996 probation violation, following an admission of possession of cocaine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11350.
Appellants claimed they were factually innocent of the possession charges and the two arresting officers had fabricated the charges against them. Because they were of the opinion a jury would believe the officers, they took advantage of favorable plea agreements.
Subsequently, they learned the officers had been involved in a notorious police scandal, involving many false arrests. They asserted that if they had known the police officers had been involved in wide-scale false arrests at the time of the guilty plea and admission, they would not have pleaded guilty and admitted the probation violation. The superior court held a hearing at which appellants, one of the police officers, and others testified. Appellants claimed the police officers had planted the PCP and cocaine on them. The police officer testified that appellants had been in possession of PCP and cocaine, although the officer conceded he had falsely arrested others and had provided perjured testimony to obtain convictions in other cases. The superior court concluded appellants had failed to establish any right to relief under coram nobis and denied the petitions on that ground, without making any factual findings as to credibility. Appellants contend the superior court erred. We affirm.
As to appellant Contreras, we asked the parties to brief whether appellant Contreras had raised any justiciable issues, in light of the facts the probation violation was not a conviction and thus had no continuing effects, appellant Contreras had not been sentenced to state prison, appellant Contreras had served the jail time imposed as a condition of probation, and appellant Contreras was no longer on probation or parole. We conclude appellant Contreras cannot be afforded any cognizable relief and no substantial rights have been affected by the denial of the petition. We affirm the order denying appellant Contreras's petition for writ of error coram nobis on this ground as well.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1994, appellant Contreras was convicted of robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. He was placed on probation for three years on condition he serve 30 days in the county jail.
On the evening of January 13, 1996, appellants, Diego Barrios, and Raymond C. were arrested by former Los Angeles Police Department Officers Rafael Perez and Samuel Martin. The officers reported that they had stopped appellants and others when they had observed an individual drinking beer in the parking lot of a fast food restaurant. A number of individuals had been searched. The officers reported finding appellant Contreras in possession of cocaine, appellant Villarama in possession of PCP, Barrios in possession of a firearm, and Raymond C. in possession of ammunition. The four suspects were members of the Headhunters G
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|