People v. Avery CA2/3

DISCUSSION

I. Avery Fails to Establish Reversible Error

On appeal, Avery contends the trial court incorrectly relied on section 1265, subdivision (a), and erred in concluding it did not have jurisdiction to consider his petition. Although we agree that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider Avery’s petition, we will not reverse a trial court order merely because the decision was given for a wrong reason. (People v. Mbaabu (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1148, fn. 4 (Mbaabu).) “[W]e must affirm if the court’s ruling was correct on any basis . . . .” (Ibid.; People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 50.) Here, we affirm the order because the claims Avery attempted to raise in his petition do not support the issuance of a writ of error coram nobis. The writ of error coram nobis is a limited, non-statutory, common law remedy. (People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078,

In general, “the trial court’s denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis is an appealable order.” (People v. Allenthorp (1966) 64 Cal.2d 679, 683, citing In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534, 537; cf. People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 885, fn. 4 [reviewing court may summarily dismiss appeal if it…