Filed 7/24/26 P. v. Block CA4/1
OPINION ON REHEARING
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D086742
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SCS319612)
v.
CARL EDWARD BLOCK,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
Carl Edward Block, in pro. per., and Jill Kent, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Carl Edward Block entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded
guilty to one count of criminal threats (Pen. Code,1 § 422) and one count of
evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)). The parties
stipulated Block would receive a two-year eight-month sentence with the
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
execution suspended pending probation. Block waived the right to appeal
from any stipulated sentence. Block was sentenced in accordance with the
plea agreement.
In July 2023, Block admitted a probation violation. He was sentenced
to 365 days in jail and reinstated on probation. In February 2024, Block
admitted another probation violation. The court imposed a two-year eight-
month sentence.
In July 2025 Block brought a motion to withdraw his guilty plea which
he deemed to be a petition for writ of error coram nobis. The People opposed
the request, arguing the court should instead apply section 1810. At the
hearing, Block told the court he was making the motion under section 1810.
The court denied that request as untimely. The court also considered Block’s
claims as a writ of error coram nobis and explained his allegations derived
from an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which was not properly raised
by writ of error coram nobis. Block further sought relief under the authority
of Code of Civil Procedure section 663, asking the court to dismiss the
charges against him. The court explained that the Code of Civil Procedure
did not apply, and if it did apply, the request was untimely. The petition was
denied.
Block filed a timely notice of appeal.
Appellate counsel filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal3d 436 (Wende) indicating counsel has not been able to identify
any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel requested the court to
independently review the record for error as required by Wende. Block was
unable to file a supplemental brief on the first review. The court affirmed the
judgment.
2
Block thereafter filed a petition for rehearing, which the court granted.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.268.) Block has since been able to file a lengthy
supplemental brief. In his brief Block criticizes the trial judge, defense
counsel, the prosecutor, and the superior court clerk. Block claims the court
should have granted his motion to set aside the plea, which he made several
years after he was placed on probation. Block claims the trial court did not
understand the law regarding the writ of error coram nobis.
A writ of error coram nobis is “applicable to only a ‘very limited class of
cases [citation]’ ” when facts unknown to the parties at the time of the
judgment would have prevented the conviction had they been known, like
where a guilty plea is procured by extrinsic fraud. (People v. Kim (2009) 45
Cal.4th 1078, 1092–1093, 1094.) In his supplemental brief, Block does not
explain why the court’s reasoning for denying the request for writ of error
coram nobis was flawed or acknowledge that the court separately considered
this claim. We see no error.
Block also alleges there were six hearings, including trial readiness
conferences, during the time in which Block was not present due to COVID
regulations. At the hearing, he argued he should have been eligible to appeal
those hearings, but his attorney never filed a notice of appeal, which showed
ineffective assistance of counsel. Absence from the hearings was not
appealable until judgment was entered (§ 1237, subd. (a)), and Block did not
appeal after entering a guilty plea. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims
are more appropriately addressed in a habeas corpus proceeding. (People v.
Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 267.)
The sum of Block’s allegations is he was denied due process and that all
the errors were structural. On this record we do not find that Block has
raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
3
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in
its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738
(Anders) counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in
evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: Whether the trial court erred
in failing to grant his motion to withdraw his guilty plea under section 1018
and Code of Civil Procedure section 663.
We have independently reviewed the record for error as required by
Wende and Anders. We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal
on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Block in this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J.*
WE CONCUR:
DO, Acting P. J.
BUCHANAN, J.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
4
