In People v. Hyung Joon Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, the California Supreme Court emphasized the limited nature of coram nobis relief, which is traceable to its origins. "The writ of error coram nobis is a nonstatutory, common law remedy whose origins trace back to an era in England in which appeals and new trial motions were unknown. 'Far from being of constitutional origin, the "proceeding designated 'coram nobis' . . ." . . . was contrived by the courts at an early epoch in the growth of common law procedure to provide a corrective remedy "because of the absence at that time of the right to move for a new trial and the right of appeal from the judgment."' The grounds on which a litigant may obtain relief via a writ of error coram nobis are narrower than on habeas corpus ; the writ's purpose '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' ." (Id. at p. 1091) Examples of such factual errors include "'"the death of either party pending the suit and before judgment therein; or infancy, where the party was not properly represented by guardian, or coverture, where the common-law disability still exists, or insanity, it seems, at the time of the trial; or a valid defense existing in the facts of the case, but which, without negligence on the part of the defendant, was not made, either through duress or fraud or excusable mistake; these facts not appearing on the face of the record, and being such as, if known in season, would have prevented the rendition and entry of the judgment questioned."' " (Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1092.) On the other hand, coram nobis "'is not a writ whereby convicts may attack or relitigate just any judgment on a criminal charge merely because the unfortunate person may become displeased with his confinement or with any other result of the judgment under attack.' " (Ibid.) It follows that "for a newly discovered fact to qualify as the basis for the writ of error coram nobis, we look to the fact itself and not its legal effect. 'It has often been held that the motion or writ is not available where a defendant voluntarily and with knowledge of the facts pleaded guilty or admitted alleged prior convictions because of ignorance or mistake as to the legal effect of those facts.' " (Id. at p. 1093.) Further limiting the scope of coram nobis relief are the three procedural prerequisites a petitioner must satisfy before the merits of his or her claim can be considered: First, the petitioner must "show due diligence when seeking such extraordinary relief" (Kim, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1096); second, the petitioner must take advantage of other remedies when available (id. at p. 1099); and third, the petitioner may not engage in "piecemeal presentation of claims" (id. at p. 1100).