Court Opinion

ID: 9586512
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:12:17.950846+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:41.896789
License: Public Domain

Collins, J.,
concurring in part but for a different reason; dissenting in part:
There appears to be no express statutory or case authority for a trial court in Nevada to entertain a petition (or motion) to withdraw a plea of guilty after judgment has been entered and imprisonment has commenced.
There is express authority permitting a trial court to set aside a plea of guilty before judgment.1 Likewise, where a *304motion for new trial has been made following conviction, the court may modify the judgment if the evidence shows the defendant to be guilty of a lesser degree of the crime of which he was convicted.2 But even this motion must be made before judgment is entered.3
Nevada’s harmless error statute NRS 169.1104 has generally been restricted to errors raised on appeal or to habeas corpus where federal or state constitutional rights are involved. Neither of these procedures were employed here when Peters filed his petition with the trial court. I feel this court should base its decision on recognized authority where that authority is available, and restrict its reliance on inherent power to those situations where no other authority is available.
Peters’ petition may then be construed as a writ of error, coram nobis. While this court has seldom had occasion to consider that writ (see Bigness v. State, 71 Nev. 309, 289 P.2d 1051 (1955), there does appear to be jurisdiction in the district courts to entertain it. The Nevada Constitution, Art. 6, § 6, provides, “The District Courts, and the Judges thereof shall have power to issue writs of Mandamus, Injunction, Quo-Warranto, Certiorari, and all other writs proper and necessary to the complete exercise of their jurisdiction; * * Coram nobis is an ancient common-law writ, Central Franklin Process *305Co. v. Gann, 133 S.W.2d 503 (Tenn. 1939), and was certainly within the contemplation of the framers of our Constitution at the time of its adoption. It is a writ seldom used and very narrow in scope. Its object is, “To relieve litigants, both civil and criminal, from judicial wrongs for which there was no remedy. Writs of error coram nobis or coram vobis were developed at common law as early as the 16th century, but originally these writs were used to permit courts to correct only their own errors of fact in very limited situations.” 18 Am.Jur.2d § 1, p. 446.
Its purpose is to correct an alleged error of fact not appearing in the record where there is no other remedy available. 18 Am.Jur.2d § 3, p. 453. People v. Ayala, 291 P.2d 517 (Cal.D.C.A. 2, 1955). That is the situation here. Based upon the stipulation of counsel that there was no asportation or carrying away of the personal property of another, it was a fact which was not and could not be known to the trial court at the time of Peters’ original plea of guilty to grand larceny. Following judgment of conviction, and commencement of sentence, Peters let his time for appeal run. He had no clear remedy of appeal or habeas corpus because his plea of guilty admitted the facts well pleaded. The error is not one of constitutional stature. Thus he had no other clear or adequate remedy by statute, writ or other proceeding.
It is true an applicant for the writ of error, coram nobis, must show that the facts upon which he relies were not known to him and could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered by him at any time substantially earlier than the time of his motion for the writ. People v. Shorts, 197 P.2d 330, 336 (Cal. 1948). Here there was no contest upon that issue. The stipulation of counsel in open court took care of such proof as Peters would otherwise have had to offer. Nor do I have any reason to doubt the integrity of the district attorney who entered into the stipulation. It is indeed a rare thing to exact such a stipulation as that from any district attorney.
I would therefore construe the petition as a writ of error, coram nobis, and sustain the action of the trial court in granting it.
The other action of the trial court, however, is without authority. No reason, other than the stipulation of counsel, appears in the record to justify or explain why the trial judge changed his mind and made the two sentences concurrent rather than consecutive as he first ordered. That determination is not one of fact which could be reached by the writ of error *306coram nobis, but one of law. No authority is cited justifying the procedure or action of the lower court. I would therefore hold, under the circumstances disclosed by this record, that he no longer had authority or jurisdiction to modify his earlier judgment and order the sentences to be served concurrently.
The order of the trial court modifying the judgment from guilty of grand larceny to guilty of attempted grand larceny should be upheld. The order changing the running of the sentences from consecutive to concurrent should be reversed. Respondent Peters’ sentence of 1 year on his plea of guilty to attempted grand larceny should be served consecutively to his sentence for first degree burglary.

 “174.340 Plea of guilty to be put in by defendant in person; plea by corporation; withdrawal.
* * * * *
“2. The court may at any time before judgment, upon a plea of guilty, permit it to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted.”

 “175.535 Grounds for new trial; modification of judgment without granting new trial; affidavits supporting motion on ground of newly discovered evidence. The court in which a trial is had upon the issue of fact, has power to grant a new trial where a verdict has been rendered against the defendant upon his application, in the following cases only:
“6. When the verdict is contrary to law or evidence, but if the evidence shows the defendant to be not guilty of the degree of the crime of which he was convicted, but guilty of a lesser degree thereof, or of a lesser crime included therein, the court may modify the judgment accordingly without granting or ordering a new trial, and this power shall extend to any court to which the cause may be appealed.”

 “175.540 Application must be made before judgment entered. The application for a new trial must be made before the judgment is entered in the cause and shall be made upon motion orally or in writing, stating one or more of the grounds specified in NRS 175.535.”

 “169.110 No judgment to be set aside except for material error. No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any case on the ground of misdirection of the jury or the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for error as to any matter or pleading or procedure, unless in the opinion of the court to which application is made, after an examination of the entire case, it shall appear that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice, or has actually prejudiced the defendant, in respect to a substantial right.”