In Re Ford

California Court of Appeal Jul 17, 1951 No. Crim. 2278Published

Before: Peek

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was not denied his constitutional right to counsel because he voluntarily abandoned the advice of his chosen counsel and entered a plea of guilty with an intelligent conception of the consequences. Additionally, the court held that the defendant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for his six-year delay in bringing the collateral attack.

Issues

Whether the defendant was denied his constitutional right to effective aid of counsel when he entered a plea of guilty.
Whether the defendant's six-year delay in filing the habeas corpus petition bars his collateral attack.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record shows without contradiction that at the outset respondent talked with and was advised by counsel of his own choice, that pursuant to that advice he entered a plea of not guilty but that he thereafter voluntarily abandoned such advice”

“It is well settled that a defendant is not denied his constitutional rights where he has voluntarily waived his right to counsel with an intelligent conception of the consequences of his act.”

“one who belatedly presents a collateral attack such as this [must] explain the delay in raising the question.”

PEEK, J.

This is an appeal by the People from an order of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, after a hearing in a habeas corpus proceeding, directing that Bernard Ford be returned to the. Sheriff of the City and County of San Francisco, to be by him taken before the municipal court of said city and county, for rearraignment and further proper action in connection with a prior proceeding out of which the said Bernard Ford was convicted and sentenced to the state prison for robbery.

The basis of the above order was that the respondent Ford

[500]

had, in the said prior proceeding, entered a plea of guilty to the crime of robbery without being represented by counsel.

In part, the transcript of said habeas corpus proceeding shows that on January 3, 1944, when respondent appeared for arraignment in the Municipal Court of the City and County of San Francisco on the charge of robbery, the following occurred :

“The Court: Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Dresow?

“Mr. Dresow : Yes, your Honor, ready for arraignment.

“The Court: All right, Bernard Ford. Let the record show Bernard Ford is represented in court by Mr. Abraham Dresow, Assistant Public Defender. Mr. Bernard Ford, I instruct and caution you that you are hereby charged with the commission of a felony, to-wit: a violation of section 211 of the Penal Code; that under the law you are entitled to a reasonable continuance for the purpose of preparing your defense, to subpoena or summon witnesses and also to engage the services of an attorney to defend you. It is your right to be represented by counsel at any and all stages of the proceedings. Arraign the defendant, Mr. Clark.

“ (Here the defendant was arraigned and answered his true name as set forth in the complaint on file herein.)

“Mr. Dresow : Your Honor, this man has requested me to ask for a continuance. It seems he has retained Mr. Harry Whitthorn as his attorney, who had to be in Oakland this morning. He suggested further, if there is no objection, I ask it to go over to January 7th.

In Re Ford

AI Brief

PEEK, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief