Legal Opinion
Mendez v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided April 4, 2001No. B145701PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.
Coramnobis will not issue to correct a judgment based upon perjured testimony unless the prosecuting authorities or the court knew or had reason to know about the perjury at the time it occurred. The question before us is this: Should we ignore that rule simply because this case is tangentially related to the Rampart scandal? Our answer is “no.”
Facts
In April 1992, Carlos Francisco Mendez was convicted of a drug offense and placed on probation. In September 1992, he was convicted of another drug offense and once again placed on probation. On May 13, 1993, he was…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Maleng v. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Pico v. CohnCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Sanders v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- People v. AdamsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
- People v. ShipmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. Hyung Joon KimCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- People v. VillaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2009
- In re StierCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
- Ferrellgas, Inc. v. Edward A. Smith, P.C.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2006
- People v. GermanyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.