(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 109178)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Duffy, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Defendant Michael Jerome Woodcock*fn1 appeals from a post-judgment order denying his "Petition For Writ of Error Coram Nobis to Vacate Judgment and Withdraw Plea." We affirm.
In August 1986, Woodcock and a co-defendant were in need of money to buy cocaine. They took an elderly woman's purse from her as she was returning to her car.*fn2 They were caught and arrested and the victim's purse and its contents were returned to her.
In September 1986, defendant was charged by information with robbery in violation of Penal Code section 211. He pleaded guilty to the charge on the condition that he would not be sentenced to state prison. He was sentenced on this charge to the low term of two years in prison.*fn3 He did not appeal from the judgment.
Nearly 24 years later, in May 2010, defendant filed a "Petition For Writ of Error Coram Nobis to Vacate Judgment and Withdraw Plea" in the superior court. He contended in the petition that his constitutional rights were violated in the taking of his plea because he was not advised of his rights not to incriminate himself, to trial by jury, and to confrontation and he did not waive those rights under Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122. He also contended that his prison sentence violated his plea bargain, which, as noted, had been made on the express condition of no prison time. Citing Penal Code section 1265 (concerning post-judgment coram nobis jurisdiction); People v. Wadkins (1965) 63 Cal.2d 110, 113; and People v. Haynes (1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 318, 320, defendant argued that his petition was a proper vehicle to challenge the constitutional validity of his prior conviction because he had not previously appealed from the judgment.
In June 2010, the court denied defendant's petition, which the court characterized as seeking to "vacate the judgment based on procedural errors occurring at the time of his plea and incarceration." The court concluded that the points raised in the petition "are the subject matter of habeas corpus and [defendant] may not seek to do via Coram Nobis that which he has missed the opportunity to pursue via habeas," citing People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, People v. Villa (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1063, and People v. Chien (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1283.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant in this court. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that stated the case and the facts but raised no specific issues and requested this court to conduct an independent review under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. This period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant.
We have reviewed the entire record under Wende and People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106. Based upon this review, we have concluded that ...