Filed 4/3/14 P. v. Brown CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
KEITH A. BROWN,
Defendant and Appellant. B252135
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A037401)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gary J. Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed. California Appellate Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, and Suzan E. Hier, Staff Attorney, under appointments by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________ ___________2 Keith A. Brown appeals from the orde r denying his petition for writ of error
coram nobis , which asserted he was an “infant” when convicted of second murder in 1987 and he was incompetent du e to the trauma of a head in jury. Brown explained in his petition that he delayed in bri nging the issue to the attenti on of the court because of the injury to his brain. The trial court denied the petition on th e dual grounds that coram nobis is an improper remedy and Brown did not establish that he is entitled to relief. This court appointed counsel for Brow n on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but requesting this c ourt to independently re view the record for arguable contentions pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Brown was advised by letter from this cour t of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Brown filed a supplemental brief and a motion to augment the record with a January 23, 2013 report of an MRI of hi s head. By separate order, we deny the motion to augment
the record. Brown’s supplemental brief reasserts the matters raised belo w in his petition for
writ of error coram nobis , but does not attempt to refute the lower court’s ruling that
coram nobis is not available to a defendant with a remedy available at law, such as habeas corpus. Our Supreme Court has made clear that “the writ of error coram nobis is unavailable when a litigant has some othe r remedy at law. ‘A writ of [error] coram nobis is not available where the defendant had a remedy by (a) appeal or (b) motion for a
new trial and failed to avail hi mself of such remedies.’ ( People v. Blalock (1960) 53 Cal.2d 798, 801; see People v. Howard (1965) 62 Cal.2d 237, 238 [claims could have been raised on direct appeal]; People v. Adamson [(1949)] 34 Cal.2d [320,] 327 [claims
should have been raised in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus].)” ( People v. Hyung
Joon Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1093-1094.) As an inmate in custody, Brown has an available remedy by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and relief by petition for
writ of coram nobis is not appropriate. The trial c ourt ruled correctly on this point.3 We have completed an independent exam ination of the entire record on appeal. No arguable appellate issues exist. The judgment is affirmed. ( Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.)

KRIEGLER, J.

We concur:

TURNER, P. J.

MOSK, J.