What is the test for a motion to vacate a judgment against a convicted murderer who suffered from encephalopathy?

"`[A]n attack on a judgment by motion to vacate it is in legal effect a proceeding for a writ of error coram nobis, whether it be called by that name or not.'" (People v. Dowding (1960) 185 Cal.App.2d 274, 276.) The purpose of the writ of coram nobis "`is to secure relief, where no other remedy exists, from a judgment rendered while there existed some fact which would have prevented its rendition if the trial court had known it and which, through no negligence or fault of the defendant, was not then known to the court.'" (Ibid.)

Harvey does not show any fact that would render the judgment invalid. He correctly points out that in People v. Welch (1964) 61 Cal.2d 786, the court granted a writ of coram nobis where the petitioner discovered that he suffered from encephalopathy and filed a petition two years after his conviction, with an affidavit from the public defender that the public defender was unaware of the defendant's condition. (Id. at pp. 789-790.) But that case is different because the medical report in that case indicated that a person with the defendant's history "`who consumes over three quarts of beer within a period of three hours cold be expected to be in a mental state in which his behavior would be automatic and for which he would be unable to recognize or understand the nature and consequences of his act . . . .'" (Id. at p. 790.) There was evidence that the defendant drank three quarts of beer on the day he shot someone. (Id. at p. 788.) The high court found that the question of the defendant's legal sanity at the time of the crimes was not adjudicated. (Id. at p. 794.) If the defendant were insane at the time of the plea it would have made the plea agreement invalid.